The Ministry of Defense announced plans for the supply of T-72B3 tanks to the Ground Forces

The Ministry of Defense announced plans for the supply of T-72B3 tanks to the Ground Forces

By the end of the year, ground forces will receive more than 120 modernized weapons tanks T-72B3M. This was reported by the press service of the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation.


According to the report, the equipment will be delivered as part of the state defense order. The Ministry of Defense emphasized that military vehicles with significantly improved combat and running characteristics would be delivered to the troops.

The T-72B3M is a deeply modernized version of the T-72 main battle tank. The T-72B3 has more powerful engines of 1130 hp, an improved fire control system with a digital ballistic computer, a sight with a laser rangefinder and an anti-tank missile control system, and the latest generation of digital communications. In addition, to facilitate reversing, the tanks are equipped with a rearview camera.

The T-72B3 armor is reinforced with side screens with Relict dynamic protection modules, mounted lattice screens, as well as new dynamic protection systems in a “soft” case.

A deep modernization of T-72 tanks to the level of T-72B3 is carried out by Uralvagonzavod.

Earlier it was reported that in early April the Ministry of Defense received the first batch of T-90M Breakthrough tanks. Tanks entered service with the Taman Division. With regard to the supply of T-14 Armata tanks, it became known that serial deliveries will begin in 2021.
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

111 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Narak-zempo 2 May 2020 15: 13 New
    • 55
    • 25
    +30
    With the latest Chubaisit active defense system developed by RUSNANO, which has no analogues in the world. The principle of protection is based on the fact that BOPS, consisting of expensive alloys, is sawn and stolen by nanorobots when approaching the tank.
    1. Grandfather 2 May 2020 18: 04 New
      • 0
      • 5
      -5
      Quote: Narak-zempo
      The Ministry of Defense announced plans for the supply of T-72B3 tanks to the Ground Forces

      Quote: Narak-zempo
      With the latest Chubaisit active defense system developed by RUSNANO, which has no analogues in the world. The principle of protection is based on the fact that BOPS, consisting of expensive alloys, is sawn and stolen by nanorobots when approaching the tank.

      it's all obvious.
    2. Bad thing 3 May 2020 07: 14 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Better at the production stage.
      1. Narak-zempo 3 May 2020 07: 49 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: Bad
        Better at the production stage.

        Which are in the combat unit - those at the production stage.
        1. Bad thing 3 May 2020 09: 40 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          These are usually sawed there.
  2. Tugarin 2 May 2020 15: 21 New
    • 13
    • 10
    +3
    The tanks are probably coming from storage. And the technology is updated, and the factory orders good
    1. Sky strike fighter 2 May 2020 16: 03 New
      • 5
      • 3
      +2
      Plans for the current year.
      More than 300 units of armored vehicles are expected to be received: T-72B3M, T-80BVM tanks, BTR-82A / AM, BMP-3 armored personnel carriers with the uninhabited Epoch combat module and BMP-2M with the Berezhok combat module. Serial deliveries of new T-90M tanks manufactured by Uralvagonzavod will also begin.

      https://tass.ru/armiya-i-opk/7516261
  3. V1er 2 May 2020 15: 30 New
    • 17
    • 0
    +17
    I liked this option of modernization - T-72M1M.

    Export modernization of the T-72M1 tank equipped with DZ, a new MSA, satellite navigation system associated with TIUS. Initially, KAZT Arena was equipped with a mixed DZ complex, Contact 5 on the VLD, and Relikt on the tower, later the full complex of the Relikt DZ was installed, and KAZT Arena was removed. There is also an automatic target tracking. Installed КУВ 9К119 "Reflex" and SEMZ. The engine is replaced by a 92 liter B2C1000. with.
    It was a modernization of 2002. Naturally, it is outdated today. It was necessary to upgrade 20 years ago.
    1. Hermann 2 May 2020 16: 28 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      I would not say that such an upgrade is outdated, the gunner’s sight there is Sosna-U, the same as on the t-72b3, the side screens are only old, by the way Algeria ordered such an upgrade only without an Arena and dynamic protection.
      1. V1er 2 May 2020 16: 33 New
        • 9
        • 3
        +6
        “Today it is outdated” - I meant that the T-90M “Breakthrough-3” and “Armata” are relevant today. And to upgrade the t-72 is no longer meaningful. It was necessary to do this earlier and much more qualitatively so as not to think about modernization for about 10 years. And now we are modernizing everything: now b, now b2, then b3. Eternal modernization.
        1. Hermann 2 May 2020 16: 39 New
          • 5
          • 0
          +5
          There is still a sense to upgrade the t-72b, but you were right to do this earlier, but probably there was no money before.
          1. wow
            wow 2 May 2020 17: 18 New
            • 10
            • 2
            +8
            Our American "partners" are modernizing their Abrams, which are already 40 (forty) years old! And also B-52, for example, which are already 50-60 years old!? And the normul is complete and it's okay ....
          2. Ross xnumx 2 May 2020 18: 06 New
            • 22
            • 13
            +9
            Quote: Herman
            There is still a sense to upgrade the t-72b, but you were right to do this earlier, but probably there was no money before.

            We made sense to modernize the An-2 ... We couldn’t ... There was the topic of creating our own mid-range airliner ... Forgotten ... The spears of the destroyer Leader were broken ... They broke off ... We dreamed of putting a Husky with VNEU ... It didn’t work ... They decided to provide the Su-57 VKS ... They didn’t go into mass production ... They promised to shoot from the “Coalition” ... O.S.E.CH.K.A. - misfire ... We decided to kill the world with the best T-14 tank ... We could not decide in view of the imperfections and omissions ...
            What did you do specifically for what was enough money? To Aurus? At worthless world-class sporting events in order to show the world your ability to push money five times more than planned?
            There was no money, say? And what was the money for? Where did the money from the NWF, from the coffers of the administration, go?
            Platoshkin correctly says that Russian production is not capable of making the “East” on which Gagarin flew ...
            And all these alterations and modernizations come only from the fact that high-class specialists in the defense industry are getting smaller every day ... What a sadness ... Tajiks and Uzbeks who come to Moscow for work are not good for this ...
            As for money, DAM already told us - we are in the know.
            1. Alex777 2 May 2020 19: 26 New
              • 13
              • 4
              +9
              They dreamed of putting “Husky” with VNEU ... It didn’t work ...

              What are you carrying? Submarines with diesel engine confuse - it is necessary to manage. bully
              1. Peter is not the first 2 May 2020 19: 54 New
                • 1
                • 1
                0
                wink To be honest, a nuclear power plant is the best VNEU. It definitely does not depend on air and a much longer life than Stirling engines, etc.
                If we would have reduced prices, the danger of radiation and dimensions, then we would have completely forgotten about diesel engines.
                So the error in the comments is only in the name of the Husky R&D.
                1. Alex777 8 May 2020 19: 07 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  1. YaUU is many times more expensive in construction, in operation, and in disposal.
                  2. YaU will always be inferior in noise. She has such a design.
                  3. I will look at the nuclear submarines in the Black Sea. And there are diesels.
                  4. There are tasks that some will solve, while others will not be able to. True in both directions. hi
            2. koramax81 3 May 2020 19: 04 New
              • 0
              • 1
              -1
              It is of course convenient to throw the "right" facts, and discard the rest. If Balabol Platoshkin is your authority, then I don’t even know ....
              And how much has the number of specialists decreased, can you point out? Or again throw a shit at the fan?
            3. maratkoRuEkb 14 May 2020 14: 34 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              Platoshkin is a balabol and a populist who found someone to listen to.
              The MS-21 medium-haul airliner is in full swing, foreign carbon suppliers have been replaced, there is an engine. Plus Sukhoi Superjet 100 flies, this is also work done.
              Frigates 22350 brought to mind and will saturate the fleet with them, the destroyer Leader is too early to do. And indeed it was the initiative work of the Design Bureau.
              Work is underway on VNEU.
              They are working on SU-57, but you don’t want to put a crude machine like the F35 on the aircraft.
              They are also working on Armata.
              What kind of alarmism?
        2. carstorm 11 2 May 2020 17: 17 New
          • 6
          • 3
          +3
          modernization is the eternal process. you still can’t think of anything else to maintain combat readiness. even t 14 will already receive projects for modernization. T 72 is the main tank and it copes with its tasks. to sculpt a child prodigy like Leo and 7 of course you can. that's just the Germans if there will be a hundred. and our park is much larger and much more expensive. by itself, with time, 72 will disappear, but it will take a dozen other years. You cannot remove the machine from the parts and wait for them to be replaced. it doesn’t happen that way.
          1. V.I.P. 2 May 2020 18: 37 New
            • 1
            • 5
            -4
            Do you think the wunderwaffle is a leopard 2a 7 .. ?? Then Poseidon, the gimlet and other crap is unparalleled in the superwunderwafer world!)))). . As in the last days of the Reich they spent money on Mauss tanks, flying saucers, V-2s, etc ... before the crash))
        3. Imperial Technocrat 2 May 2020 17: 18 New
          • 5
          • 6
          -1
          Nonsense. T-72B3M is almost not inferior to T-90M
          1. Uncle Izya 2 May 2020 18: 18 New
            • 0
            • 2
            -2
            In the same place, they wrote a cannon from armata, which means that these armor-piercing shells from armata also use new ones
        4. Romario_Argo 2 May 2020 22: 43 New
          • 3
          • 2
          +1
          And there’s no point in upgrading the t-72

          T-90M Breakthrough-3 go to shock tank divisions, and T-72B3 go to strengthen motorized rifle on BMP-2/3 in defense
          there the sector tactics of using tanks (45 degrees), 1 Sosna-U sight is enough, on the defensive when tanks are in the trenches
          * You can google yourself a fire map of motorized rifle platoons with tanks
          everything in our complex - and the T-72B3 tanks will go on attack only after work:
          OTRK, MLRS, bombers, turntables and attack aircraft - on scorched earth
          - count on glass
          1. Bad_gr 3 May 2020 09: 05 New
            • 2
            • 1
            +1
            When the T-72 tank was created, in addition to the Ural Design Bureau (Object 172M), there was also an OCD with the code "Buffalo" (Object 172M-2M, Object 172-3M)
            "... To improve the armor resistance of the upper frontal part, the thickness of the back sheet was increased and the angle of inclination was changed to 70 ° ........ The layout of the motor-transmission compartment of the hull was changed to the side of compaction, due to which they were additionally placed in the car 6 shots. The turret reservation scheme has also been modified. The frontal projection of the turret in the ± 30 ° zone was equipped with steel platoon screens ......
            ..... In the framework of the ROC "Buffalo" work was carried out on a 130-mm gun. In the period 1972-74, two versions of the gun were created - the rifled LP-36E and the smooth-bore - with the ability to launch ATGMs through the barrel (LP-36B). .... "

            This is what I am for:
            when they adopted the T-62 tank (object 166) they abandoned the more progressive "Object 167" (this is its chassis, and the AZ are now on the T-72),
            in place of the T-72 they could choose the "Buffalo", but they chose the "Ural", which lost to him in many respects,
            "Object 90" claimed to be the T-187, but they chose it cheaper (Object 188),
            They should have adopted the “Object 195” (T-95), but considered it expensive and outplayed the “Object 148” (Armata or T-14)
            In general, with the adoption of final decisions, the approach does not change.
            1. Romario_Argo 3 May 2020 10: 05 New
              • 3
              • 2
              +1
              pay attention to the booking of the T-72B3 boards, 110 mm composite insert
              when they switch to boron carbide, the equivalent will be 880 mm steel + 80 mm board
              + screens with DZ Relict another 600 mm
              it turns out that they just don’t want to notice
              only the board holds on silicon carbide 440 + 80 + 600 = 1120 mm
              and will hold 880 + 80 + 600 = 1560 mm
              1. ROSS_51 3 May 2020 12: 39 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Quote: Romario_Argo

                + screens with DZ Relict another 600 mm

                This is where you counted 600 mm in the Relic? More?
                1. Romario_Argo 7 May 2020 11: 55 New
                  • 0
                  • 0
                  0
                  DZ Relict holds tandem warheads 250-350 mm x 2 = 500-700 - average 600 mm
                  when you conduct a comparison, do not look at export technology, performance characteristics are underestimated
    2. Bad_gr 2 May 2020 21: 52 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      Quote: V1er
      Originally equipped KAZT "Arena"

      A later version of the Arena (the locator does not stick out above the tower)
  4. svp67 2 May 2020 15: 37 New
    • 10
    • 1
    +9
    sight with a laser rangefinder and anti-tank missile control system,
    Here is the discovery ... and as I understand it earlier, on the T-72B tanks that are undergoing this modernization they weren’t ... I laugh ... I can’t.
    1. pmkemcity 2 May 2020 15: 42 New
      • 1
      • 4
      -3
      Quote: svp67
      sight with a laser rangefinder and anti-tank missile control system,
      Here is the discovery ... and as I understand it earlier, on the T-72B tanks that are undergoing this modernization they weren’t ... I laugh ... I can’t.

      Previously, she was "capitalism" ...
      1. svp67 2 May 2020 15: 44 New
        • 15
        • 1
        +14
        Quote: pmkemcity
        Previously, she was "capitalism" ...

        No, they were simply "unexpectedly" "found" and entered into the act of completion
        And now, what else ... peering at the photo of the modernized UVZ T-72B

        and T-80BVM
        As I understand it, the heads and hands of the guys from Omsk are better versed in business than their colleagues from Nizhny Tagil, although they seem to be in the same group now, they could learn from the best friend.
        1. carstorm 11 2 May 2020 17: 22 New
          • 5
          • 2
          +3
          this is an old modernization of 72 b 3. Since 16, there has been an updated one.

          1. svp67 2 May 2020 17: 39 New
            • 9
            • 0
            +9
            Quote: carstorm 11
            t 72 b 3. from 16 years is updated

            And the tower on it is covered with blocks of course better, but just as carelessly ..
            But on the T-80BVM everything is better ...




            1. Aristarkh Lyudvigovich 2 May 2020 18: 03 New
              • 5
              • 0
              +5
              There is such a moment that the dimensions of the cheeks of the T-72B tower are larger, which complicates the installation of DZ, especially Kontakt-5 or Relikt, without interfering with access to the control compartment. Take the T-80B without attachments. It can be seen that the size of the cheeks of the tower is quite modest.
              1. svp67 2 May 2020 18: 12 New
                • 5
                • 0
                +5
                Quote: Aristarkh Lyudvigovich
                There is such a moment that the dimensions of the cheeks of the T-72B tower are larger, which complicates the installation of DZ, especially Kontakt-5 or Relikt, without interfering with access to the control compartment.

                Sorry, but this is not an argument ... in any case, large "cheeks" or not, but the DZ blocks on the tower interfere with the exit and entrance of the m.v. from the tank, but even here the T-80 made them better, the angle of elevation of the lower blocks is larger, the head of the mechanical water can not get that way, and if so, these lower blocks are on the hinges, which allows them to be lifted, and change
                1. Aristarkh Lyudvigovich 2 May 2020 18: 35 New
                  • 3
                  • 0
                  +3
                  Meanwhile, the tower cheeks also affect the installation of DZ blocks. The forehead of the T-72B tower was initially protected better than the T-80BV tower. The filler consists of 20 packages, each of which consists of a 21 mm layer of steel, 8 mm rubber and a back 3 mm steel sheet. The bags share 22 mm air gaps. The T-80BV tower has weaker protection, which has not received any strengthening and is equal in booking to the old towers of the early T-72A. The T-80BV tower is cast, with 110-120 mm of the outer steel layer, 180-200 mm of a niche for sand filler and 120-130 mm of the inner layer. The T-80BVM tower (considering the extremely weak native defense) only with relict catches up with the T-72B towers. The cheek of the T-72B tower, prepared by the Americans.
                  1. svp67 2 May 2020 18: 38 New
                    • 6
                    • 0
                    +6
                    Quote: Aristarkh Lyudvigovich
                    The T-80BV tower is cast, with 110-120 mm of the outer steel layer, 180-200 mm of a niche for sand filler and 120-130 mm of the inner layer.

                    She does not have sand, but corundum rods as a filler.
                    Quote: Aristarkh Lyudvigovich
                    Meanwhile, the tower cheeks also affect the installation of DZ blocks.
                    Yes they do, but not in the aspect in which you are now trying to prove. Look at the T-72B2 "Slingshot", on this modification the units are more sensible and they are installed in the same way as on the T-80BVM, and they are structurally similar

                    1. Aristarkh Lyudvigovich 2 May 2020 18: 46 New
                      • 5
                      • 0
                      +5
                      And exactly, my mistake. Missed about corundum rods. Excuse me.
                      Here is another photo of the T-72B3 tank turret. The protective plate in front of the roof blocks DZ and the dimensions of the cheeks of the tower are clearly visible.
                    2. Aristarkh Lyudvigovich 2 May 2020 19: 02 New
                      • 3
                      • 0
                      +3
                      Quote: svp67
                      Look at the T-72B2 "Slingshot", on this modification the units are more sensible and they are installed in the same way as on the T-80BVM, and they are structurally similar

                      Well, yes, the installation of DZ "Relict" on the turret of the T-72B2 "Slingshot" tank, in contrast to the DZ of the Contact-5 type, provided significantly better overlapping of the frontal projection by DZ containers. If I am not mistaken, the T-72B2 “Slingshot” tank had an emergency opening system for the driver’s hatch. To do this, a pyro cartridge is installed in the lid mechanism, the explosion of which quite quickly raises and tilts it. By the way, like on the T-72B3 on the tower, the DZ boxes are universal, you can put both a contact and a relic in them, depending on what is in stock.
                  2. Romario_Argo 2 May 2020 22: 47 New
                    • 3
                    • 2
                    +1
                    T-72B3 side protection has an insert of 110 mm boron carbide equivalent to 440 mm steel
                    + 80mm board + anti-cumulative screen with DZ Relict, equivalent to 600 mm
                    The side of the T-72B3 tank holds the equivalent. 440 + 80 + 600 = 1120 mm
                    if at an angle of 45 degrees. = not less than 1300 mm
        2. Alekseev 2 May 2020 17: 26 New
          • 7
          • 0
          +7
          Quote: svp67
          the heads and hands of the guys from Omsk understand better than their colleagues from Nizhny Tagil, although they seem to be in the same group now

          hi
          Here, perhaps, the matter is not in the guys from N. Tagil and Omsk, but in the unprincipledness of the Moscow guys from the GBTU and the servicemen who were with them. They must ensure that the projection of the tank closes as far as possible DZ, and not for the "plaisir" and the formal execution of the order.
          1. svp67 2 May 2020 17: 29 New
            • 7
            • 0
            +7
            hi
            Quote: Alekseev
            and in the unprincipledness of the Moscow guys from GBTU and the servicemen who were with them.

            Unfortunately, this is the place to be, although Omsk residents are still offering this "unprincipled" something more practical.
        3. Aristarkh Lyudvigovich 2 May 2020 17: 49 New
          • 3
          • 1
          +2
          Quote: svp67
          As I understand it, the heads and hands of the guys from Omsk are better versed in business than their colleagues from Nizhny Tagil, although they seem to be in the same group now, they could learn from the best friend.

          In your photo there are 4 boxes of dynamic protection on the roof of the T-80BVM photoshop tower. There are only 13 of them.
          1. Aristarkh Lyudvigovich 2 May 2020 18: 11 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            On serial T-80BVM boxes of dynamic protection on the roof of the tower is also 13 pcs.
  5. Ovsigovets 2 May 2020 15: 45 New
    • 11
    • 1
    +10
    the T-72 tank is an MBT ....... they are and will be "there" for a long time ...... modernization is needed no matter how you look .... T-72B3 is better than T-72B ..... let them upgrade
    1. spirit 2 May 2020 16: 53 New
      • 9
      • 3
      +6

      Yes, but modernization is more suitable for conflicts like Syria, Libya. For a conflict with Turkey and other NATO members, this modernization is outdated. The machine gun on the turret is not automatic, there is no panorama, modern ammunition capable of piercing Leo or Abrasha’s forehead from a decent distance is inferior to NATO’s, it’s too small and does not cover everything, the relic is only on the sides and the forehead is the same contact 5. yes and modern crowbars Abrams and LEO will flash it’s forehead at least with a relic, even without it. So let's hope that if something happens, this modification can be quickly equipped with at least something hi
      1. Ovsigovets 2 May 2020 17: 04 New
        • 5
        • 1
        +4
        and I won’t even argue ... of course I would like everything to be super super and luxurious ... BUT ... there is 0, there is 1, there are 2 and 3 ...... 1 is still more than 0 no matter how cool. T-72B3 is better than T-72B ???? then it already makes sense
      2. svp67 2 May 2020 17: 30 New
        • 2
        • 1
        +1
        Quote: spirit
        The machine gun on the tower is not automatic

        ??????? Not an automatic machine gun is cool ... ah, he’s probably just “self-loading”
      3. carstorm 11 2 May 2020 17: 31 New
        • 4
        • 7
        -3
        Do you really believe in a situation where tanks will stand with each other and shoot in the forehead? tank battle in a real war is a maneuver. it is a movement. the time of tank attacks has passed a long time and will not return. Now tanks with tanks are at war, if they will, then in individual cases and sporadically. tactics and thinking in general have changed dramatically. in a hypothetical case, no one will attack a self-propelled pillbox of Tipo Abrams head-on. protection is not a panacea either. Let me remind you that the same abrams were recently closed with dynamic protection on the sides. they walked around Iraq naked.
        1. voyaka uh 2 May 2020 18: 14 New
          • 12
          • 4
          +8
          "no one will hypothetically attack a self-propelled pillbox
          abrams in the forehead "///
          ----
          Abrams tank is nimble and capable, thanks to a gas turbine, to make
          jerking from a place sharper than any diesel tank. Only the T-80 can jerk
          from a place to compare with Abrams.
          Therefore, hope that Abrams will give themselves to maneuver and substitute the sides,
          hardly reasonable. We’ll have to fight head-on. As was the case in the Iraqi wars of 1991 and 2003
          of the year. The result is known.
          1. carstorm 11 3 May 2020 02: 30 New
            • 3
            • 3
            0
            a jerk is not a panacea. in the desert, much is forgiven. on our theater it will not help. those speeds that GTE can give in conditions of a forest and winding road, for example, will not give anything. The weight of these machines will limit their use globally. and our theater is the only place where our army can collide with any enemy tank.
          2. jonht 3 May 2020 08: 09 New
            • 1
            • 3
            -2
            May these Abroms in our mud “accelerate their weight”. I’m afraid that this will only lead to even greater burial in the mud, and even bury it beneath a layer of mud.
        2. svp67 2 May 2020 18: 16 New
          • 5
          • 0
          +5
          Quote: carstorm 11
          Now tanks with tanks are at war, if they will, then in some cases and singly

          Wait, but most recently you spoke ...
          Quote: carstorm 11
          Do you really believe in a situation where tanks will stand with each other and shoot in the forehead?

          So am I confused, so will the tanks fight or just drive?
          1. carstorm 11 3 May 2020 01: 53 New
            • 1
            • 1
            0
            isolated cases) I emphasized this specifically)))
            1. svp67 3 May 2020 04: 03 New
              • 3
              • 0
              +3
              Quote: carstorm 11
              isolated cases) I emphasized this specifically)))

              Practice shows that you are wrong. You just look at the range of ammunition used by tanks, especially western ones and think how many infantrymen can be killed with one BOPS? Namely, there are most of them in b / w western tanks
              1. carstorm 11 3 May 2020 09: 53 New
                • 1
                • 4
                -3
                Well, they can change or accept the ammunition nomenclature arbitrarily. this will not change the fact that tank battles are a thing of the past. and ATGMs and helicopters with them are more dangerous for the tank on the battlefield. Concealment and distance leave no opportunity to make any moves without full interaction with other types of troops. the accumulation of tanks anywhere is a target. and it’s not the enemy’s tanks that will work on them. tank column now can not just appear somewhere. it will be revealed and a blow to it will be still on the march. in all recent conflicts, more than 70 percent of armored vehicles were not destroyed by tanks at all. This is an indisputable fact.
                1. svp67 3 May 2020 10: 07 New
                  • 0
                  • 1
                  -1
                  Quote: carstorm 11
                  Well, they can change or take ammunition nomenclature arbitrarily

                  Maybe they can, but in fact they now have two of them - BOPS and HE-Cumulative, both of them are imprisoned for fighting tanks.
        3. Uncle Izya 2 May 2020 18: 22 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          They say that tanks deal best with all of these tanks themselves. And in Donetsk, tanks did battle with tanks
          1. carstorm 11 3 May 2020 09: 57 New
            • 1
            • 1
            0
            read the statistics. too lazy to look for but it is quite eloquent in the fact that the main losses of armored vehicles there from the ATGM fire. and artillery.
      4. Ovsigovets 2 May 2020 18: 42 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        By the way, for the sake of interest, I opened the Turkish Ground Forces and here: M48A5 T1 / T2 - 750 pieces; M60T - 166 pieces; M60A3 - 650 pieces; M60A1 - 100 pieces and Leopard 1A4 / Leopard 1A3 / Leopard 2A4 - 715 pieces ...... and it turns out that the valley of cartridges 1666 tanks and leopards 715 tanks ...... but in the Russian Federation it seems like they also order T-90M and T-14 are experiencing
      5. Romario_Argo 2 May 2020 22: 50 New
        • 2
        • 3
        -1
        T-72B3 can not be pierced by BOPs either in the forehead of the hull (equivalent to 1800 mm) or into the tower (equivalent to 2100 mm) or into the side (1200 mm) - this is the normal angles
      6. Crimean partisan 1974 3 May 2020 07: 50 New
        • 1
        • 3
        -2
        Abrams and LEO crowbars will stitch it on the forehead with at least no relic ...... this is a grandmother for two, for if good old 24-kilogram OF-36 arrives at Abrash and Leo ... then this is kirdyk. definitely, I’m silent about POO
        1. Romario_Argo 7 May 2020 12: 02 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          question. Where will Abrams meet and NOT export T-72B3 -?
          We always have T-72B3 as a reinforcement of motorized rifles on the BMP-2/3, still there are platoons on the Assaults and Chrysanthemums somewhere
          maximum possible hypothetical meeting with T-90MS of the 1st Shock Army, where the thread in Poland
          but again, only after processing of Poland: OTRK, SLCM, KRVB, MLRS (G / S / U), self-propelled guns, Su-34/24 bombers, Su-25 attack aircraft, multifunctional Su-30/35, Mi-24/28/35, Ka- 52, strategists Tu-22/95/160
          only after that T-90 or T-72B3 pass by burned Abrams or Leo
          1. Crimean partisan 1974 7 May 2020 20: 11 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            but again, only after processing Poland: ....... after all of the above, there will be no need to go there,
            1. Romario_Argo 7 May 2020 21: 20 New
              • 0
              • 0
              0
              you asked - I answered
              what will meet when our past kebabs pass
              because everything in our complex, no one will put experiments on people
              1. Crimean partisan 1974 7 May 2020 23: 53 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                no one will put on experiments on people ....... how to know, how to know, in the Donbass they haven’t finished anything yet
  6. alone 2 May 2020 15: 50 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    It's time to determine a single MBT ..
    The main thing is not to create a tank .. The main thing is to create the material and technical base, the technical staff, you need to create the production of all types of ammunition for the tank, crews for these tanks ... and finally the number of tanks to start creating tank brigade battalions from these tanks. . Here then we can say that a specific MBT to adopt ..
    1. For starters, the Russians should have an independent, serious state. A serious state will have serious aircraft ... The T-72 tank is about 50 years old. French ,, Renault ,, FT-17 was used only to a limited extent during WWII. For example, to protect airfields, to fight partisans ... Nobody took them seriously anymore. Cars in 1939 were not even a quarter century, in 1945 (!) Were not even 30 years old. It’s even hard to imagine the reaction of the USSR government to the British proposal to supply, for the needs of the Red Army in 1941, not Valentines, but, for example, Mk-V.
      T-72 is outdated. No restyling will help him anymore. Need other cars. With a different lineup. ... Evacuation hatches in the tower, in the stern and (or) between the track and support rollers. Another location of the automatic loader, commander’s cupola, other hatches, ... serious ,, trunk, at the stern of the tower.
      It seems that BTT ,, Capitalist Russia ,, (,, RK ,,) engaged civil, nerds, in the tank and not sitting. Otherwise, how to explain the fact that the T-72 crew can leave the damaged car ONLY through their own hatches. And the score goes, sometimes, not for minutes, but for seconds. What kind of attitude towards PEOPLE? Quite ,, market ,,,? ,, Russian women still give birth,?
      1. Stalllker 2 May 2020 18: 10 New
        • 5
        • 1
        +4
        This is exactly where our Russians have their own independent state, and you don’t like it !!! And we will deal with our internal problems ourselves, foreign without you!
        1. As soon as I read, we have Russians, I immediately remembered, Brother-2 ,, ... ,, Young man, we, Rugskie do not deceive each other ,,) Something strange seemed to me your desire to talk about nationalities and state affiliation. It’s like we’re discussing a tank, right? Have you served this machine? Do you have or were you related to real tanks? The author of this comment was related. For example. On different theater, if SHO.
          Have a desire to talk about ,, independent state ,,? We can talk about this. Independent states do not pay potential adversaries, 70-80 rubles per 1, green candy wrapper,. Here, for example, dependent Ukraine pays only 25 hryvnias for a candy wrapper. Nazi Germany during WWII demanded for its brand TOTAL 10 Soviet rubles in the OCCUPIED territory. Is it not shameful to pay, foreign, 70-80 of their own, hard-earned, living in a free state?
          ... Why are the Russian-speaking people, ch and d, and, ALL Russian children, literally from elementary school, to learn English in an independent state? I am not aware of the facts of a MANDATORY study of the Russian language in American or British schools. And you?
          Since you forced me to write this to you, then be so kind as to clearly answer the questions I asked, dear Stallker.
          ... And for now I will continue about the T-72. Since I wrote the second time). He was not originally a “breakthrough”. ,, Ice ,, is the T-64 and T-80. A ,, 72nd, was intended for the participating countries of the ATS. It was even sold to capitalist Finland. Once again, the layout of the car is controversial, experimental, temporary. The Union could afford to have a few MBT. Could afford to freak out - funds allowed.
          Now, after 30 (!) Years after the collapse of the USSR, the modernized T-72 should be issued for an “excellent tank,” either stupidity or wrecking.
          Make ,, the great strategists ,, with stripes transfer from modern, Mercians, to the super-duper modernized, Volga, GAZ-24 - they will twist at the temple to the author of a strange ,, innovation ,,. And can you give out for a “breakthrough”, armored junk with impunity?
          1. MMX
            MMX 3 May 2020 17: 14 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: evgeniy.plotnikov.2019mail.ru
            As soon as I read, we have Russians, I immediately remembered, Brother-2 ,, ... ,, Young man, we, Rugskie do not deceive each other ,,) Something strange seemed to me your desire to talk about nationalities and state affiliation. It’s like we’re discussing a tank, right?


            But you wrote it:
            For starters, the Russians should have an independent, serious state.

            In the topic of discussion of the tank. And then you are indignant that there is a desire to talk about statehood ...

            Independent states do not pay potential adversaries, 70-80 rubles per 1, green candy wrapper,. Here, for example, ,, dependent Ukraine, pays only 25 hryvnia for ,, candy wrapper ,,

            Is China independent? How much does he pay for a candy wrapper? lol

            Why do they force the Russian-speaking, ch and d, and, ALL Russian children, literally from elementary school, to learn English in an independent state

            Learning foreign languages ​​is the norm in all civilized developed countries. Russia among them. If you do not understand this, well, that means you are mentally underdeveloped. Sometimes this is a consequence of an inferiority complex.

            In the meantime, I'll continue about the T-72. Since I wrote a second time


            In fairness, it should be noted that the same Leopard 2 is only 5 years older, Abrams is 6 years old. And they are still in service and not at the very last “independent serious countries”. wink

            P.S. Personally, I am against the T-72B3M. But I could not miss your comment, although it was not addressed to me.
            1. And I can’t miss your rudeness. Why are you provoking me? We discuss the tank, and not my, mentality, or, complexes. I don’t know you, but you take up my ,, psychological portrait ,,. What for? Who allowed? Is it safe to be naughty behind a keyboard? Why only?
              Now be quieter. Elder Ambrose Optinsky said: “Know yourself - and enough of you.” And the Russian proverb has a wonderful one: ,, Curious Barbara's nose was torn off in the bazaar ,,. The proverb says that you don’t have to poke your nose there ... where you don’t have to poke it.
              Again about the tank. What do we care about ,, abrams ,, and ,, leopards ,,? WE must develop, and not, sleep on the go, like, sleep, the last 30 years, eating up the Soviet legacy. By the way ,, Leo ,, not ,, relatives ,, T-72 from the word ,, quite ,,. The engine of the German- ,, song ,,. For 500 meters you may not hear. The gun is better, longer-range, more powerful. ,, Leo ,, drove the tanks of Novorosia at the beginning of the war in the Donbass. The militia responded about ,, German ,, with respect. ,, Abrams, also constantly upgrade. More than 5 years ago, they already had a transparent bulletproof shield under the machine gun on the tower. For instance. People think about the carriage, take into account the military experience, ,, move. " About this, my comments, not about forum users. ... And you accustom to the good. We will not teach evil
              1. MMX
                MMX 4 May 2020 07: 58 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Quote: evgeniy.plotnikov.2019mail.ru
                And I can’t miss your rudeness. Why are you provoking me? WE TANK DISCUSS


                I just pointed out your inconsistencies in the reasoning. As a result, I see that it makes no sense to sort through.
                Let's discuss the tank.
                What do we care about ,, abrams ,, and ,, leopards ,,?

                Well, well, only by comparison is known. If we say that the T-72 is a tank with a pedigree from the 70s, then we should mention other MBTs from the same period. Statement of fact. Like it or not, but it is a fact.

                By the way ,, Leo ,, not ,, relatives ,, T-72 from the word

                Undoubtedly not a relative. Nobody talked about this.

                drove tanks of Novorosia at the beginning of the war in the Donbass


                What????

                Abrams, also constantly upgrade

                Well, the T-72 was modernized seriously and continuously (the same T-90).
      2. 3danimal 2 May 2020 21: 47 New
        • 2
        • 4
        -2
        The tank was developed in Soviet times and reflects the Soviet attitude towards the fighters (it must and will die, it is easy to replace).
    2. VO3A 2 May 2020 17: 06 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      And let's determine the role of tanks in a modern war ... Not in a war with partisans, but in a war with a "probable" enemy. There are no tank breakthroughs in modern warfare, there are no massive applications either ... Tanks are used in the 3rd echelon mainly to cover the main striking means and for the final cleaning of already controlled areas ... No, of course, the role of the tank in network-centric systems to the end not appreciated ... But for this, the tank must enter these systems and receive real-time information from them ... Without this, the tank on the "battlefield" is only a good target ... And both Armata and Breakthrough will burn equally well, and T-72B3 ... While we are trampling on the spot in the mastery and development of modern methods of warfare, we don’t need expensive Almaty, we cannot and cannot use their capabilities ... In this regard, modernization is justified and profitable ... Especially , taking into account the possibility of selling these tanks to different "partisans" ...
      1. Ross xnumx 2 May 2020 18: 21 New
        • 1
        • 2
        -1
        Quote: VO3A
        And let's determine the role of tanks in a modern war ...

        And let's decide on the goals of Russia, if it is drawn into a modern war ...
        Right on the list and let's go ...
        Russia has no territorial claims. Consequently, a retaliatory or preventive missile strike, the purpose of which is to preserve Russian statehood, will not imply the hoisting of a “tricolor” over the White House or somewhere in Brussels.
        On this and finish.
        A tank, as a means of armament (combat unit) will be of value in the fight against a weakly armed enemy, such as ISIS terrorists, during hostilities of a local nature. The war with the help of drones and combat robotic systems is the prospect of conducting combined arms combat.
        And our generals continue to prepare for the last war ...
        1. VO3A 2 May 2020 21: 08 New
          • 0
          • 3
          -3
          And our generals continue to prepare for the last war ...

          Generals are taught to fight at the General Staff Academy. They are simple performers here ... But they are moving military science to the General Staff with the help of their structures and military universities ... The role of the Chief of the General Staff is very great ... We have a deep reformer, scholar, a great scientist and a far-sighted commander ... The day is working and night - on the Star of the Hero has already worked ... And we are still there, in the deep ... OPE ....
        2. 3danimal 2 May 2020 21: 53 New
          • 0
          • 3
          -3
          Russia has no territorial claims. Consequently, a retaliatory or preventive missile strike, the purpose of which is to preserve Russian statehood, will not imply the hoisting of a “tricolor” over the White House or somewhere in Brussels.

          There are enough such inadequacies (sometimes in dangerously high ranks). The flag over Washington is for courage (it was over Berlin, but propaganda tactfully keeps silent about the price).
          But about the Baltic States, Russian officials have repeatedly allowed carnivorous jokes, once again strengthening Estonians, Latvians, and Lithuanians in the correctness of their decision to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
    3. Pandiurin 2 May 2020 17: 33 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      "It's time to determine a single MBT .."
      Is it worth and how much will it cost?

      Modernization pulls even old tanks that were on conservation to the fact that they can be united into a group with interaction at the level of CIU.

      If you consider that the T14 is very cool.
      Then in such a group, together with armature in terms of fire efficiency, even T72B3 will not concede to the latter.
      Vitality will also be somewhat higher, at least due to the fact that an ATGM attack can be detected in advance and there will be time for some kind of action. The same goes for the T90m.

      Those. joint use of old and new modifications allows you to increase both the number and increase the efficiency of old models.

      By the way, Armata has a significant minus compared to old tanks, it is heavier and larger. From a logistics point of view, transporting by transport aircraft, for example, is more difficult.
      1. Ross xnumx 2 May 2020 18: 27 New
        • 2
        • 3
        -1
        Quote: Pandiurin
        By the way, Armata has a significant minus compared to old tanks, it is heavier and larger. From a logistics point of view, transporting by transport aircraft, for example, is more difficult.

        And where do you need to transfer it? Where is this potential theater of war?
        I am surprised by all this protection of modernized and promising tanks, if thermobaric ammunition, like some bombs, gives the crew absolutely no chance of survival ...
        You will decide on the forces against which you need to put Russian tanks, and together we will quietly rejoice ...
        1. VO3A 2 May 2020 21: 23 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          I decided, I have a very good idea of ​​the role of tanks and the nature of military operations in modern war in general ... So what? Do you think this is interesting to anyone? ... And you quietly not rejoice... You don’t even know about the HAND and ROCK performed by the NSSh ... Although this is irrelevant, no more than half-measures, half measures, but in real execution ..
  7. MMX
    MMX 2 May 2020 15: 52 New
    • 4
    • 11
    -7
    The T-72B3M is a deeply modernized version of the T-72 main battle tank.


    I’m laughing with this phrase wassat
    1. Uncle Izya 2 May 2020 18: 25 New
      • 0
      • 1
      -1
      Do not care, as they called, their sharing has rights
  8. awdrgy 2 May 2020 17: 19 New
    • 5
    • 2
    +3
    Yes, a normal tank, it’s not for him to carry out any special tasks against terrorists. For a breakthrough, it’s all. And all these sophisticated Leclerci Leopards and Black Panthers are fiction. Extremely expensive and unsuitable for a serious war platform. Designed to minimize crew loss in the war. against a poorly equipped adversary (or as a ptsau) Mass production of them in the conditions of a “military economy” is extremely difficult And dreams of “total superiority over savages” and victory in a war “somewhere out there” with a pair of super tanks will remain dreams and therefore we especially you don’t have to run into mass production over expensive platforms. Of course, PR needs to be in the guard divisions. But Breakouts are quite suitable for expeditionary operations (therefore they should be procured within reasonable limits) By and large, a new dynamic turret could be installed on the T10 with a gun defense and he would have fought well (at least the decisive enemy’s tanks had no decisive advantages and over opportunities not observed)
    1. Stalllker 2 May 2020 18: 19 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      I agree that a normal car, only where and what he needs to break through is also not clear. It would be better if these machines were rolled out for export and the T-90M was riveted for the proceeds, and, if possible, the T-14, at least a couple of three battalions.
      1. awdrgy 2 May 2020 18: 54 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        And this is a political issue unfortunately
      2. Crimean partisan 1974 3 May 2020 08: 13 New
        • 0
        • 1
        -1
        I agree that a normal car, only where and what should he break through ....... but is it necessary to break through something in local disassemblies. ... in conversations with the tankmen I caught one thing, they speak with one voice. T-72 is an excellent war horse. but the standard ammunition is better from OF-36 and UR, it’s simpler, otherwise these adjustments, ballistics, and so on for a bunch of all BOPs and cumulative ones. .... and so there is only one adjustment, but for KUV it is not needed at all ....... if we are modern, then KUV tank is the same thing, especially since Invar has a heavy land mine
        1. Stalllker 3 May 2020 08: 17 New
          • 0
          • 1
          -1
          I did not write about the ammunition. This was a response to the previous comment.
          1. Crimean partisan 1974 3 May 2020 08: 31 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            I did not write about the ammunition ...... I rather typed than wrote, but oh well. what ammunition is wrong?
            1. Stalllker 3 May 2020 09: 29 New
              • 0
              • 1
              -1
              Yes, I fuck what is wrong with you, fuck off
              1. Crimean partisan 1974 3 May 2020 09: 30 New
                • 0
                • 1
                -1
                Yes, I’m talking about what’s wrong with you, fuck off .... no question, then don’t be dumb
  9. Warrior MorePhoto 2 May 2020 17: 46 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    Quote: V1er
    “Today it is outdated” - I meant that the T-90M “Breakthrough-3” and “Armata” are relevant today. And to upgrade the t-72 is no longer meaningful. It was necessary to do this earlier and much more qualitatively so as not to think about modernization for about 10 years. And now we are modernizing everything: now b, now b2, then b3. Eternal modernization.


    The modernization and delivery to the troops is conditional, because all T 72B3Ms in the future will be redone for robotics when Armata goes into the series.
    In total, we immediately get about 1500 heavy tanks ready for robotization, of course, there will also be modernization, but it is no longer cardinal, because this is already taken into account.
    1. 3danimal 2 May 2020 22: 23 New
      • 1
      • 1
      0
      Projects ... It remains to add that the re-equipment will be done in a couple of years (as they planned to build 3 Armat in 2000 years).
  10. Alexfly 2 May 2020 17: 50 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Why not 1200?