"Replacing the outdated Soviet T-72": the Czech press praised the Israeli light tank Sabrah

T-72M4 CZ

In the Czech Republic, there has been a long debate about replacing obsolete tanks T-72M4 CZ. The main candidates are two types of MBT - the German Leopard 2 and the South Korean K2 Black Panther. However, other options should be considered that will preserve the armored power.

New player in tank building

This opinion is expressed on the pages of the Czech edition CZDefence. As noted, the transition to light tanks may become a non-standard solution. As an example, the United States is given, where, since the end of 2020, prototypes of machines of this type are being evaluated within the framework of the Mobile Protected Firepower program. There are ready-made options, such as the M1128 wheeled tanks on the Stryker platform, the French AMX-10 RC or the Italian B1 Centauro.

However, recently it became known about the appearance on the world market of Israeli technology - the Sabrah light tank, which is offered in both wheeled and tracked versions. The armament is a 105 mm cannon, a 7.62 mm machine gun and optionally two ATGMs in the turret; the machine is equipped with the Torch-X control system, the Iron Vision system for tracking the situation at 360 degrees and the Iron Fist KAZ. The Sabrah is comparable in weight to the T-72M4 CZ (44 tons versus 48 for the T-72), but at the same time it is much lighter than both the above-mentioned MBT Leopard and Black Panther (62 and 55 tons).

Sabrah

Difficulties in choosing

Sabrah offers interesting opportunities not only for the Czech Armed Forces, but also for the Czech defense industry

- noted in the publication.

As explained, the customer of the Israeli tank is the Philippines, and part of the work in their manufacture will be assigned to the Czech Republic. If Prague itself acts as a buyer of this technology, then we should expect a wider participation of the local industry in their production. In this regard, one of the possible options is proposed.

This is a complete replacement of the T-72M4 CZ tanks with the Sabrah platform and, to some extent, a decrease in firepower (due to a smaller caliber gun)

- writes the Czech press, but pointing out the possibility of installing an Israeli tower on a promising tracked infantry fighting vehicle, on which the Czech army has not yet made a decision. Moreover, Prague, as a NATO member, has undertaken to create a heavy mechanized brigade.

It is not an easy task when choosing a replacement for the T-72M4 CZ tanks. The main factor is likely to be the amount of funds allocated for the modernization of the tank arsenal.

- concludes the author, without questioning the need to replace "obsolete Soviet machines."

Comments

[sen]

Actually, "Sabra", Sabrah - this is how it is written in English and we are talking about a tower that can be installed on various tracked and wheeled platforms.
It is armed with a low impulse 105mm rifled cannon with a 52 caliber barrel (105 / L52). Loading - from an automatic loader for 12 shots, 24 more are in the case. The cannon's rate of fire is 6 rounds per minute, the effective firing range is 3,600 m. A 7.62-mm machine gun with an ammunition load of 500 rounds is paired with the cannon, and another 1,500 are in the hull. Also, 8 smoke grenade launchers of 76 mm caliber are installed on the tower, and if the customer wishes, an ATGM launcher with 2 guides can be installed. There is no active defense.
As a tracked base for the Philippine contract, the ASCOD 2 armored personnel carrier of General Dynamics European Land Systems (joint production in Austria and Spain) was used. As a wheel - Czech Excalibur Group Pandur II (respectively, production in the Czech Republic).

[Eugene-Eugene]

Sabrah is incorrect to call "Sabra". If only because there is already a Sabra - this is a deep modernization of the American M60A3 tank for Turkey. However, also created by an Israeli company. Although the GABTU will figure out what to call what.

[Professor]

Quote: Eugene-Eugene

Sabrah is incorrect to call "Sabra". If only because there is already a Sabra - this is a deep modernization of the American M60A3 tank for Turkey. However, also created by an Israeli company. Although the GABTU will figure out what to call what.

Well, Elbitu lacked creativity and called this armored vehicle Sabra.

[Profiler]

Quote: sen

Loading - from an automatic loader for 12 shots, 24 more are in the case. Cannon rate of fire - 6 rounds per minute

Often listing the apparent and obvious shortcomings of the T-72 family tanks is indicated "long reload time due to the design features of the automatic loader (AZ)"extending within 8-14 seconds.

The new Israeli development has 6 rds / min, that is, the reload time is 10 seconds for 12 shots in the AZ, and plus the additional time spent by the crew on manually replenishing the AZ from the stowage in the hull.

And all this against the background of the smaller caliber of the gun, that is, its lesser power.

The Czechs need to - let them change a tank with a 125mm smoothbore cannon for a tank with a 105mm rifled gun, but we will combine 125mm (in the future and a larger caliber) on MBT and the 2S25 Sprut-SD self-propelled airborne anti-tank gun, and smaller caliber guns on samples of the type "Vienna" and BMP-3 ...

Let each traveler choose the road he needs.

[loki565]

Well, here you can argue that the fastest in reloading is the Japanese type90, but the T72 is far from last.

[Professor]

Quote: loki565

Well, you can bet that the fastest in recharge it is a Japanese type90, but the T72 is far from last.

1. Not on video COOLDOWNS on all tanks. Let's compare the same processes. For example, on a Japanese tank, only the process of sending a shell is shown? How long does a full cycle take as in the video in Merkava? How long is the full cycle on the T-72?
2. In real combat operations, the slowest link is not the loader, but the gunner. Do you think the gunner will be ready to hit a new target in 3 seconds or even 13 seconds?
3. The tank's ammunition is limited and no one will use it up in a minute (20 rounds per minute?) Or in 10 minutes. Let God fire 5 shots.

[loki565]

Ok, let's compare, well, how did it meet the standard ???))) what 5 shots, then shoot at least once)))

[Professor]

Quote: loki565

Ok, let's compare, well, how did it meet the standard ???))) what 5 shots, then shoot at least once)))

Again, you are not comparing correctly. Why is the T-72 loaded with a submachine gun, and not manually from the ammunition rack, and in the Merkava the young lady gets the training shell not from a special store, but from the floor? Give in both cases from the most convenient or least convenient places.
By the way, two counter questions:
1. What is the standard for the Merkava?
2. Are there young ladies loaders in Tsakhal?

[loki565]

Why the T-72 is charged with an automatic machine, and not manually

Everything is very simple, the T72 has AZ and even a fragile girl can charge it after a little training, but the Merkava does not and do not teach there without physical training anywhere)))

in Merkava, the young lady gets the training equipment not from a special store, but from the floor?

With what effort she lifts it, it is quite possible that she herself dropped it on the floor.

Are there young ladies loaders in Tsakhal?

Not? why then take the standards?)))

[Professor]

Quote: loki565

Everything is very simple, the T72 has AZ and even a fragile girl can charge it after a little training, but the Merkava does not and do not teach there without physical training anywhere)))

Uh-huh. AZ is especially helpful when replacing a track or, say, when guarding a tank. Whether it is the 4th crew member ...

Quote: loki565

With what effort she lifts it, it is quite possible that she herself dropped it on the floor.

Can? And yet, why not from the drum, but from the floor?

Quote: loki565

Not? why then take the standards?)))

By the way, two counter questions:
1. What is the standard for the Merkava?
2. Are there young ladies loaders in Tsakhal?

[loki565]

Uh-huh. AZ is especially helpful when replacing a track or, say, when guarding a tank. Whether it is the 4th crew member ...

this is an anachronism, before the passenger aircraft had a crew twice as large, automation helped to reduce, and in tanks. Sooner or later, everyone will switch to AZ, followed by the future. Just a little expensive, you have to redo the layout of the tank. design a new tower ...

Can? And yet, why not from the drum, but from the floor?

Where dropped from there and raises)))

By the way, two counter questions:
1. What is the standard for the Merkava?
2. Are there young ladies loaders in Tsakhal?

Well, this young lady clearly did not pass the standard, or brochures with performance characteristics are very lying)))
As the interlocutor wrote below

By the way, the IDF decided not to continue trial tests of female tank crews.

[Professor]

Quote: loki565

this is an anachronism, before the passenger aircraft had a crew twice as large, automation helped to reduce, and in tanks. Sooner or later, everyone will switch to AZ, followed by the future. Just a little expensive, you have to redo the layout of the tank. design a new tower ...

Don't confuse a tank with an airplane. The plane is serviced and prepared for the flight by dozens of people. The crew of the tank does almost everything by itself. Have you seen how the pilot himself hangs the bombs? And how does it pass through the lubrication points? How does the chassis change itself? The tankers themselves and the extra two hands do not interfere at all. Or, in your opinion, with the technical development of the West, they could not create AZ?

Quote: loki565

Where dropped from there and raises)))

Did you see where she dropped it? Tell us more about it.

You still haven't answered the questions:
1. What is the standard for the Merkava?
2. Are there young ladies loaders in Tsakhal?

PS
It turns out that you do not know if there is a standard for loading the Merkava at all, especially since you do not know what the standard is.
It turns out there are no loaders in Tsakhal. Where, then, is this staged video? The fighter invited his Girlfriend, changed into a tankman's uniform and got it on like that?

[loki565]

Don't confuse a tank with an airplane. The plane is serviced and prepared for the flight by dozens of people. The crew of the tank does almost everything by itself. Have you seen how the pilot himself hangs the bombs? And how does it pass through the lubrication points? How does the chassis change itself? The tankers themselves and the extra two hands do not interfere at all. Or, in your opinion, with the technical development of the West, they could not create AZ?

3 people may well serve the tank, proven by the years of operation of the T72, etc.
in the event of a serious breakdown, there are always ARVs and various technical equipment. The USA + Europe riveted so many tanks that changing the concept and layout is simply not profitable, besides, they have always relied more on aviation.

Did you see where she dropped it? Tell us more about it

picks up from the floor means dropped to the floor, everything is logical. Did you see that she didn't drop? Tell us about it in more detail)))

You still haven't answered the questions:
1. What is the standard for the Merkava?
2. Are there young ladies loaders in Tsakhal?

Of course there is, but I won't tell you anything))) you are a professor and you yourself should know this, at least remember how many shots per minute the merkava does according to performance characteristics)))

It turns out there are no loaders in Tsakhal. Where, then, is this staged video? The fighter invited his Girlfriend, changed into a tankman's uniform and got it on like that?

There were also tests that they failed, and therefore no, ask at least ironic (Sasha) What once again proves the advantages of AZ which can be controlled even by the wife of a tanker, but what then did he show his son too))) Can a child charge a merkava?) ))

[ironic]

And you put a shell of this length into the machine gun. By the way, the IDF decided not to continue trial tests of female tank crews.

[loki565]

Have you tried to separate the shells into a powder charge and a warhead? AZ without a difference to push the whole projectile or in parts

[ironic]

We tried it, when we were weighing the option of a 140mm gun with a separate charge on the Merkava-4, where the turret was originally designed with an option for installing a larger gun and refused, initial checks showed that there was a difference.

[Professor]

Quote: loki565

AZ without a difference to push the whole projectile or in parts

Again you are "not accurate". You can't fit a longer projectile into the AZ. For example with a longer crowbar. With manual charging, this is not a problem. And a longer crowbar is for ...

[loki565]

Again you are "not accurate". You can't fit a longer projectile into the AZ. For example with a longer crowbar. With manual charging, this is not a problem. And the longer crowbar is for

If we take AZ of the T72 family, then yes, it is difficult to increase the length of the BOPS there, but in more modern "turret" AZs it is quite possible.

[Professor]

Quote: loki565

Again you are "not accurate". You can't fit a longer projectile into the AZ. For example with a longer crowbar. With manual charging, this is not a problem. And the longer crowbar is for

If we take AZ of the T72 family, then yes, it is difficult to increase the length of the BOPS there, but in more modern "turret" AZs it is quite possible.

And we will forgive which tank in your videos were we looking at? Not the one whose towers fly like flying saucers thanks to AZ? Let's define ourselves and compare apples to apples.

[loki565]

And we will forgive which tank in your videos were we looking at? Not the one whose towers fly like flying saucers thanks to AZ? Let's define ourselves and compare apples to apples.

Strange, but the towers fly off and tanks without AZ)))

So it was developed when ATGMs were not so widespread and the variety of RPGs was less))) Besides, the USSR already had a slightly different concept of its use, in the event of a global war with NATO, first sprinkle nuclear weapons a little and reduce the number of units with RPGs and then quickly tank throw to lamanche.
Nowadays it is more modern and safer "turret" AZ with knockout panels and so on.

[Professor]

Quote: loki565

Strange, but the towers fly off and tanks without AZ)))

Some tanks have turrets flying off, while T-72s have turrets that don't fly off. Thank you AZ.

Quote: loki565

So it was developed when ATGMs were not so common and the variety of RPGs was smaller)))

What a news.

Quote: loki565

In addition, the USSR already had a slightly different concept of its use, in the event of a global war with NATO, first sprinkle nuclear weapons a little and reduce the number of units with RPGs and then a quick tank throw to the lamanche.

The news is no less interesting than the previous one.

Quote: loki565

Nowadays it is more modern and safer "turret" AZ with knockout panels and so on.

Uh-huh. However, we are talking about the T-72.

[loki565]

Some tanks have turrets flying off, while T-72s have turrets that don't fly off. Thank you AZ.

Obviously, the thought went somewhere wrong)))

What a news.
The news is no less interesting than the previous one.

exactly)))

Uh-huh. However, we are talking about the T-72.

It's about the superiority of the AZ over the manual one, and it doesn't matter what tank it is on. More modern and safer "zabashnye" This was worked out on the "black eagle" project, but too big changes led to the creation of a new tank, on the old base it was problematic.

[Professor]

Quote: loki565

Obviously, the thought went somewhere wrong)))

Well yes. They wanted to cut a crew member, but obviously the thought went somewhere wrong. As a result, the crew was tinkered with unprotected ammunition from all sides, so much so that almost any penetration of the armor leads to detonation of the ammunition rack and to the flight of the tower.

Quote: loki565

exactly)))

Did you come up with the news yourself, or was it written in the military doctrine of the USSR?

Quote: loki565

It's about the superiority of the AZ over the manual one, and it doesn't matter what tank it is on. More modern and safer "zabashnye" This was worked out on the "black eagle" project, but too big changes led to the creation of a new tank, on the old base it was problematic.

Strange, but for some reason the leading tank builders in the world did not notice this advantage. Okay, the French were the first to create AZ - they have everything, as always, through ... ny, but why did the Germans and the Anglo-Saxons not notice the "advantages" of AZ? Maybe because there is no advantage?

[loki565]

Strange, but for some reason the leading tank builders in the world did not notice this advantage. Okay, the French were the first to create AZ - they have everything, as always, through ... ny, but why did the Germans and the Anglo-Saxons not notice the "advantages" of AZ? Maybe because there is no advantage

Too conservative, again they rely more on aviation than on tanks. They also slowed down from the DZ, not to mention the KAZ, backward what to take from them))) But the USSR, the French, the Japanese, the Koreans, the Chinese)))

[Professor]

Quote: loki565

Too conservative, again they rely more on aviation than on tanks.

That is, they build tanks at $ 10 million apiece and do not count on tanks? Cool. Well at least you are not saying that the level of technical development does not allow the Germans, Americans and British to create AZ.

Quote: loki565

They also slowed down from DZ, not to mention KAZ, backward what to take from them)))

Exactly, that's why the first DZ and KAZ were used ... by the Zionists. However, even the Zionists did not supply AZ. How so? Such innovations are being introduced, but AZ has not been pulled?

Quote: loki565

But the USSR, French, Japanese, Koreans, Chinese)))

Well, the French are famous perverts, the USSR, with 50 tanks, saved 000 soldiers. And the Koreans and the Japanese are yes, the legislators of the tank fashion.

[loki565]

That is, they build tanks at $ 10 million apiece and do not count on tanks? Cool. Well at least you are not saying that the level of technical development does not allow the Germans, Americans and British to create AZ.

Again you twist, like an adult, but still there))) Installing AZ on the same Abrams will lead to a complete re-arrangement, which in fact will be the creation of a new tank, and the United States does not need this, Abrams are already in storage, and the release of a new tank will increase and so the sky-high price tag twice)))

Exactly, that's why the first DZ and KAZ were used ... by the Zionists. However, even the Zionists did not supply AZ. How so? Such innovations are being introduced, but AZ has not been pulled?

well, you compared, hanging DZ and KAZ blocks on ready-made tanks and redesign, establish production, in fact, a new tank)))

Well, the French are famous perverts, the USSR, with 50 tanks, saved 000 soldiers. And the Koreans and the Japanese are yes, the legislators of the tank fashion.

So the Japanese and Koreans did not have a heap of tanks in storage and they could safely choose the best and latest at that time, their technologies allow. Or maybe the purchased T80 led to these thoughts)))

[Professor]

Quote: loki565

Again you twist, like an adult, but still there))) Installing AZ on the same Abrams will lead to a complete re-arrangement, which in fact will be the creation of a new tank, and the United States does not need this, Abrams are already in storage, and the release of a new tank will increase and so the sky-high price tag twice)))

The Abrams was created later than the T-72 and the bourgeoisie could choose any layout. Where is AZ? Where is AZ on Merkava 4? Where is he on Leopard 2?

Quote: loki565

well, you compared, hanging DZ and KAZ blocks on ready-made tanks and redesign, establish production, in fact, a new tank)))

Again. Where is the AZ on the Merkava-4 on which there are no innovations? Where is AZ on the Abrams?

Quote: loki565

So the Japanese and Koreans did not have a heap of tanks in storage and they could safely choose the best and latest at that time, their technologies allow. Or maybe the purchased T80 led to these thoughts)))

Or maybe they have such a number of tanks that they are not even enough for parades? Where is AZ for the trendsetters of tank fashion?

[ironic]

A rifled gun, more precisely, more shells in the ammunition load for the same storage volume, or the same amount for less. The ability to reduce the difference with a large caliber due to the length of the projectile. Octopus and BMP-3 are not tanks and their protection leaves much to be desired, as well as the internal space for the crew. And it all depends on the tasks and also on where to produce, where to repair and the ability to participate in export.

[Victor_B]

If the Czechs buy Jewish tanks, production will most likely be launched.
They have everything for this (?) / (Was?), Well, they will finish-saw it, they have always been wonderful with weapons.

[Sergey_G_M]

Given the foreign policy of the Czech Republic, they can afford any tank they want, they may even not accept any tank at all.
So, given that production will partially be in the Czech Republic, such a tank looks quite justified.
The tank is cheaper than competitors, it is cheaper to operate, it passes through almost all bridges, tank transporters and evacuators are cheaper.
In general, a good parade / range tank for a peaceful country

[psiho117]

Why is it so heavy if it is "light"?
There are many lighter vehicles on the market with a gun of this caliber, and even a few 120-125mm.
48 tons for a machine with a 105 mm gun is too much.

[Maki Avellevich]

Quote: psiho117

48 tons for a machine with a 105 mm gun is too much.

44 tons. written.

[Professor]

Quote: psiho117

There are many lighter vehicles on the market with a gun of this caliber, and even a few 120-125mm.

... and the protection of lighter vehicles is correspondingly weaker. There are no miracles.

[lucul]

and the protection of lighter vehicles is correspondingly weaker. There are no miracles.

This Sabra is comparable in weight to the T-72, 44t versus 48t. Is the booking comparable? )))
If you put a 72mm cannon on the T-105, it will also be easier.

[Old tanker]

Chekhov was ordered to create a heavy mechanized brigade according to NATO standards, so they are creating. They are not going to a world war, as well as any other. Other NATO members hope to protect them from "aggression". And with the adoption of the Sabrah, they will additionally load their enterprises and provide jobs. This is the essence of this proposal.

[Paranoid50]

Quote: Old Tankman

... Other NATO members hope to protect them from "aggression".

The Poles also hoped. As a result, they were prepared for the role of a "cold meat snack" - in NATO's plan to seize the Kaliningrad region, it is the Poles who must burst in the first echelon.

[Old tanker]

The key word is HOPE that others will protect them.

[Paranoid50]

Quote: Old Tankman

Keyword HOPE

So let them drink to their desires coinciding with the possibilities of their hangouts.

[Professor]

Quote: lucul

This Sabra is comparable in weight to the T-72, 44t versus 48t. Is the booking comparable? )))

The T-72 is less well protected. Install the same level of protection on it and its mass will jump up then heavy bourgeois tanks.

Quote: lucul

If you put a 72mm cannon on the T-105, it will also be easier.

How much?

[lucul]

The T-72 is less well protected. Set it to the same level of protection

In more detail, what is the level of protection on this Sabra? )))

[Professor]

Quote: lucul

The T-72 is less well protected. Set it to the same level of protection

In more detail, what is the level of protection on this Sabra? )))

At least there is a regular KAZ and a ballistic protection level of 4 STANAG.

[lucul]

At least there is a regular KAZ and a ballistic protection level of 4 STANAG.

Strong, but now we are looking at the western STANAG 4569 level 4:

bulletproof protection: a B-32 bullet of a cartridge of 14,5 mm x 114 at a distance of 200 meters with a meeting speed of 911 m / s
bullet approach angle (direction): 360 ° (round)
anti-fragmentation protection: detonation of a 155 mm high-explosive fragmentation projectile at a distance of 30 m; direction of approach of fragments: - 360 ° (all around); elevation angles 0 - 90 °
mine protection: detonation of a high-explosive anti-tank mine (charge mass 10 kg BB):
4а - undermining a mine from a push action when hitting a wheel or a caterpillar
4b - undermining a mine under the bottom

Well, or a picture

And this protection, in your opinion, is stronger than the T-72 armor ???
Hmm, strong, you will not say anything)))

[Professor]

Quote: lucul

At least there is a regular KAZ and a ballistic protection level of 4 STANAG.

Strong, but now we are looking at the western STANAG 4569 level 4:

bulletproof protection: a B-32 bullet of a cartridge of 14,5 mm x 114 at a distance of 200 meters with a meeting speed of 911 m / s
bullet approach angle (direction): 360 ° (round)
anti-fragmentation protection: detonation of a 155 mm high-explosive fragmentation projectile at a distance of 30 m; direction of approach of fragments: - 360 ° (all around); elevation angles 0 - 90 °
mine protection: detonation of a high-explosive anti-tank mine (charge mass 10 kg BB):
4а - undermining a mine from a push action when hitting a wheel or a caterpillar
4b - undermining a mine under the bottom

Well, or a picture

And this protection, in your opinion, is stronger than the T-72 armor ???
Hmm, strong, you will not say anything)))

And you forgot about KAZ. Do you think the T-72 holds a TOU or a Cornet? And Sabra is holding. And where is the defense stronger?

[lucul]

And you forgot about KAZ. Do you think the T-72 holds a TOU or a Cornet? And Sabra is holding. And where is the defense stronger?

)))
And how KAZ, on Sabra, was going to hold a shell from a 125mm T-72 cannon? )))
No, not so, to paraphrase - how did the KAZ, on the Sabra, intend to hold a shell from the 30mm BMP-2 cannon? )))

[Professor]

Quote: lucul

And how KAZ, on Sabra, was going to hold a shell from a 125mm T-72 cannon? )))

Hmm. He was going to hold the shell from the 125-mm cannon. how was the T-72 going to keep the 105mm cannon shot? And the Cornet? What about TOU?

[ironic]

I think that a light tank should be designed to hold the 30mm cannons of the BMP-2 and 3. And the KAZ, respectively, from the subsonic ATGM.

[Professor]

Quote: ironic

I think a light tank should be designed to hold the 30mm cannon BMP-2 and 3. And the KAZ, respectively, from the subsonic ATGM.

He owes nothing to anyone. Is not it? However, for this weight, it is not designed to hold a 30 mm projectile. By the way, the T-72 holds such a projectile only in the frontal projection.

[ironic]

Actually, it should, to the crew. Otherwise, it is no longer quite a tank or not a tank at all. Are you sure that 30mm hits the side of the hull in 72?

[Professor]

Quote: ironic

Actually, it should, to the crew. Otherwise, it is no longer quite a tank or not a tank at all. Are you sure that 30mm hits the side of the hull in 72?

Tank or not tank is semantics. Yes I am sure. "the steel part of the hull is made entirely of rolled homogeneous armor. The vertical sides of the hull are 80 mm thick in the area of ​​the control compartment and the fighting compartment and 70 mm in the area of ​​the engine-transmission compartment.".

30 mm penetrates 100 mm with confidence:
https://www.nammo.com/product/our-products/ammunition/medium-caliber-ammunition/30-mm-series/30mm-x-173-apfsds-t/

[ironic]

The semantics is designed to limit the range of the discussed subjects, otherwise a horse with an ox will have to be harnessed to a cart.
Special armor with a molybdenum core. You would also bring American 30mm with U-238 for A-10.

[Professor]

Quote: ironic

The semantics is designed to limit the range of the discussed subjects, otherwise a horse with an ox will have to be harnessed to a cart.

"To whom the mare has a bride."

Quote: ironic

Special armor with a molybdenum core. You would also bring American 30mm with U-238 for A-10.

What special ammunition? An ordinary feathered caliber gun for the 30-mm cannon.
The tungsten penetrator is designed to provide high energy and maximum penetration capability.

[ironic]

Well, yes, that would not turn out errors between "if I had a horse" and "if the horse had me."

Well, are sub-caliber ammunition? Especially if we are talking about an armored personnel carrier or an infantry fighting vehicle? It's like saying that 9x19 7N21 is a normal cartridge for a pistol ... to carry bulletproof vests.

[Professor]

Quote: ironic

Well, yes, that would not turn out errors between "if I had a horse" and "if the horse had me."

Something like that. Only some have this BMP, while others have a "light tank".

Quote: ironic

Well, are sub-caliber ammunition? Especially if we are talking about an armored personnel carrier or an infantry fighting vehicle? It's like saying that 9x19 7N21 is a normal cartridge for a pistol ... to carry bulletproof vests.

Of course they are ordinary. Regular armor-piercing ammunition. These are in service with the Russian Federation.

[ironic]

Well that is the difference between the two phrases will not be felt. Well, then the armor is not needed at all, since the intactness of the 80th level is present.

Well, yes, like a massage of the prostate with a mop is almost an ordinary medical procedure. Considering the aforementioned horses, it also depends on the attitude.

[Professor]

Quote: ironic

Well that is the difference between the two phrases will not be felt. Well, then the armor is not needed at all, since the intactness of the 80th level is present.

Duc Sabra with the 4th level of protection suddenly became a tank when, like armored cars with the 6th level, there are still BMPs. Well I say "semantics".

Quote: ironic

Well, yes, like a massage of the prostate with a mop is almost an ordinary medical procedure. Considering the aforementioned horses, it also depends on the attitude.

I didn't understand this joke.
30-mm APCR shells made of tungsten are the standard armor-piercing ammunition of the BMP. Even Bulgarians make them. Why are you surprised?

[ironic]

I'm not surprised at the use of Tungsten as armor piercing, it is also used in the alloy of crowbars in tank guns, but the crowbar is still a specialized ammunition. But BMP and armored personnel carriers are not anti-tank weapons in the main.

[ironic]

And how did this help the T-72 at the proving ground when testing the Challenger 2? Maybe his frontal armor did it?

[ironic]

Challenger 2 has not fired at Sabra yet, but fired at 72. Put it on. Do you have an extra rifle?

[ironic]

This is not protection, but a new design of the shroud.

[ironic]

44T.
Do you know the weight of the Merkava 2 with the same weapon? What is the advantage of a rifled gun, too, you know?
These are not combat vehicles, this is a coffin included with the crew.

[Constanty]

A strange proposal that smells of corruption. A vehicle with a weak 105mm cannon and questionable armor, with the need to create a new system, supply chain, etc.

It's more like trying to push ASCOD into the Czechs through the back door.
Better to go back to the old Czech plans to install the French Giat T-72 turret with a full 21mm cannon on the T-120 chassis.

[Constanty]

I understand that the downsides are that this Israeli invention would be better (because worse) for Russia, or that the Jewish lobby is still strong, despite the massive emigration of Russian Jews to Israel.

A, more specifically:
1.) Ascod in bare configuration with resistance up to 14,5 mm is about 28 tons, similar to Cockerill tower. CT-CV 105HP is about 4 tons. I sincerely doubt that even if there were another 12 tons for the armor, with such dimensions we could have achieved the T-72M1 armor.
2.) The 105mm cannon, even with Mecar ammunition, is inferior to the 120mm cannons - both the German Rh120 and the French GIAT CN120-26 / 52.
The 120mm cannon is the absolute minimum, and everything is slowly approaching 130-140mm, not backwards.
3.) The Czechs have invested a lot of money in the modernization of the T-72M4CZ - they have an anti-mine system, new communication and stabilization systems, Dyna-72 reactive armor and SSC-1 Obra self-defense system, as well as an Israeli NIMDA power unit (CV-12- TCA Condor with 736 kW (1000 hp) in combination with XTG-411-6 automatic transmission).
Upgrading will retain at least some of these elements and will cost much less than acquiring completely new vehicles of dubious combat value.

[ironic]

There are almost no Jews left in Russia, but they still rule and drink all the water and their weapons are minuses. Here it is a superweapon ...
Therefore, for example, I only put minuses either for racism or for trollism. For example, I did not put it to you for the last post, but for an outright abomination I would put this post at the beginning.

1) And what was so special about the T-72 armor against a cannon shot, if the Challenger 2 dropped it on the training ground from the lobshnik before taking off through the engine?
2) It is inferior, but surpasses in accuracy, the number of ammunition in a smaller volume of storage space, and it is also possible to partially neutralize the penetrating capabilities of larger caliber guns due to the length of the crowbar, for example, the Merkava-2.
3) It is not at all necessary to throw off what is available for scrap; replacement can occur gradually, with the subsequent sale of the removed equipment. Those who want to buy at a discount will definitely be found. And combat value is tested in battle, not by guesswork. The combat value of the T-72 in the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict was rather low. And the Czechs will switch to their own production of the used equipment and it is possible to supply it to someone else under joint contracts.

[ironic]

Cheaper with a more accurate gun. Possibility of choosing a variant with a wheel formula. It is not known which is better, depending on the task.

[Dkuznecov]

And Czechs are not ashamed to buy tanks from Jews?