The process of upgrading the T-72B tank to the B3M level is shown

Corporation "Uralvagonzavod" demonstrated the process of transformation tank T-72B model 1989 into a modern B3M version of the 2022 iteration.

MBT is brought into the preparatory workshop, where the tracks are dismantled. After that, the tank is towed to another production site. Here, mechanisms and assemblies are completely removed from the equipment, leaving only the skeleton of the hull, which undergoes sandblasting, cleaning in the bulk pool, restoration of integrity during welding and painting.

At the same time, the tower is being equipped with a new 2A46M-5-01 smoothbore gun with an improved stabilization system, Relikt passive dynamic protection units and new optical sighting equipment.

Along with the updated turret, protective side screens and the 1130-horsepower V-92S2F engine, new tracks with a parallel hinge are attached to the hull, which are more reliable and durable and allow to increase the reverse speed, which plays an important role when maneuvering the tank on the battlefield.

Upon completion of the entire cycle of work, the MBT improved during the repair and modernization is tested and sent to the unit assigned to it to continue service in a completely new capacity.

Comments

[svp67]

The front needs T-90M more, but T-73B3M is better .... than T55 and T-62

[user1212]

Quote: svp67

but the T-73B3M is better .... than the T55 and T-62

I don’t understand why everyone is so worried about T55-T62. Yes, it’s difficult for them to fight with tanks, but why are 55-62 bad as a mobile gun for infantry work? Nobody whines like that at the French chariots of the Ukrainians, although they scored for protection there at the development stage. A tank, even an outdated one, is much better IMHO than 113 with browning or infantry fighting vehicles in terms of support

[Egeny]

T-90M is needed, but T-73B3M is better.

... now, everyone has become "tankers" ... and production workers
And I think that it is better to "upgrade" hundreds of thousands of existing machines than to dispose of samples in warehouses, still in grease, and build new "armats". We already went through this when they cut "poplars" alive and blew up launchers with a hunchback.

[oldmetal]

"it is better to "upgrade" hundreds of thousands of existing machines" Even better, a million, but where to get it?

[Bad_gr]

Pay attention to the bulwark. It was extended and now it covers the engine compartment. And earlier, in the area of ​​​​the engine, there were gratings.

[Ilgizl]

In general, practicality was not our forte. But in these circumstances, I completely agree with you. It is worth taking examples of successful upgrades, now I don’t remember how the Czechs successfully did this with former Soviet tanks, and implement it at home. Or if it’s really bad for remelting, but not for scrap or for scrap, as in the dashing 90s.

[svp67]

Quote from Egeni

... now, everyone has become "tankers" ..

I won’t talk about everyone, but I connected my fate with the tank troops in 1984, having entered the tank command school ...

Quote from Egeni

And I think that it’s better to “upgrade” hundreds of thousands of existing cars than to dispose of them in warehouses,

That I don’t remember what I said somewhere about recycling, and I’ll upgrade the strife.
Specially, for the unification of the tank fleet, the Burlak combat tank module was developed, that's what we urgently need to put on stream and install on our tanks. And it is adapted for installation on the T-72, T-80 and T-90

[alexmach]

and why are 55-62 bad as a mobile gun for infantry work?

Low resistance to anti-tank weapons with which this infantry is armed.

[user1212]

Is it much larger for BMPs currently used for these purposes?

[svp67]

Quote: user1212

Is it much larger for BMPs currently used for these purposes?

No, but they have significantly higher mobility and maneuverability

[oldmetal]

"what's wrong with 55-62 as a mobile gun for infantry work?" And why do we need tanks used as guns at all? This is actually some kind of bizarre twist of military thought generated by the NWO. To smoke infantry from trenches in forest plantations with direct fire, or not direct, and even with air correction? This is just complete nonsense. I don’t even understand how it appeared - the lack of normal control, interaction and communication, as well as normal artillery at the partisan stage of the existence of the army of Little Russia. There are no other explanations. Field fortifications should take out artillery from closed positions. From the advanced units, the maximum that is needed is reconnaissance, target designation and adjustment. An attempt to do this with a tank en front is insanity. A tank will not even suppress a light fortification, I’m not talking about a serious one.

[karabas-barabas]

Quote: user1212

I don’t understand why everyone is so worried about T55-T62. Yes, it’s difficult for them to fight with tanks, but why are 55-62 bad as a mobile gun for infantry work?

It is at this stage, since the autumn of 2022, the fuss near Bakhmut and Avdeevka, you can at least adapt the T-34. But when a maneuverable battle starts on wide sections of the front, breakthroughs, then all these T-55 T-62s will become helpless trash, due to no situational awareness and communications. Yes, a lot of tanks are newer, T-72 and T-80 for these reasons in a serious battle will fall under the batches. After all, communications, as you know, are the Achilles heel of the RF Armed Forces, all these Chinese radios will be massively suppressed by the EW of the Armed Forces of Ukraine during an offensive. Due to the lack of T-72 and BMP 1,2,3, T-55 and BTR 50 are coming, what can you do, apparently better than areas without any armored vehicles, even T-55 and BTR-50. The T-55 can help as effectively as communications, SLA, accuracy and range of fire allow, most likely not at all at night.

[svp67]

Quote: user1212

I don’t understand why everyone is so worried about T55-T62.

I won’t speak for everyone, I’ll answer for myself, I served on these machines and I know almost everything about their capabilities, which is why I’m not happy with their appearance now on the battlefield

Quote: user1212

No one whines like that at the French chariots of the Ukrainians, although they scored for protection there at the development stage.

If the T-54/55 and T-62 had the same observation and aiming devices, as well as mobility, then I would agree with you

[user1212]

The extreme modifications of these tanks from the 80s are not bad at all. Even birds brought 117m. Again, not as a tank for a tank battle, but as an infantry support vehicle. Ukrov from the building to smoke it out. Well, t90m is not needed for these purposes. No, it would be great if there were a lot of them and cheap, but what we have is what we have. In the presence of suo on modern tanks, the mobility of the chariots does not play a role. Who, according to ukrogovna, has better mobility, it’s still a question, especially in a city littered with fallen trees, garbage, some kind of handicraft barricades, etc. a spotter with a heat source. The question is in what modification and with what ammunition these tanks can go there. Well, God forbid, our miracle generals will use this technique wisely, and not arrange Prokhorovka. By the way, the promised ukram leo1 of the same years is completely deprived of armor

[svp67]

Quote: user1212

The extreme modifications of these tanks of the 80s are not bad at all.

I just served them. And I’ll say that they were very heavily overweighted, and unevenly, as a result, mobility suffered, the main sight remained, and the TS remained, as a result, the turret had a greatly weakened zone just on the gunner’s and commander’s landing line, the installation of the rangefinder was unsuccessful, how not to tighten its nuts reconciliation, but after a couple of shots, the pairing with the sight starts to go astray, which dramatically reduces the chances of using the TUS ... etc. and so on.

Quote: user1212

Ukrov from the building to smoke it out. Well, t90m is not needed for these purposes.

The power of the T-90M OFS is higher, that is, to solve the same fire mission, they need to be spent less, not to mention the mobility and maneuverability of the T-90. There, the mechanic even has a camera for viewing the rear hemisphere, that is, he does not need to constantly adjust the direction when moving back from the commander, which is very important when maneuvering, since the commander continues to observe the battlefield

[Sergey Dvornikov]

The front needs professionals and not those who simply served under the "obligation" - I served for 2 years, I kept the machine gun once on the oath - they were forced to do all sorts of nonsense all the time!

[oldmetal]

And what was your VUS? Please clarify...

[1 z1]

In general, only the "power frame" remains from the T-72 B. Well, maybe some other little thing, after troubleshooting and repair.

[Fizik13]

Quote: 1z1

In general, only the "power frame" remains from the T-72 B. Well, maybe some other little thing, after troubleshooting and repair.

The tanks do not have any frames, even "power" ones, they have a hull and a turret.

[1 z1]

Quote from Fizik13

Quote: 1z1

In general, only the "power frame" remains from the T-72 B. Well, maybe some other little thing, after troubleshooting and repair.

The tanks do not have any frames, even "power" ones, they have a hull and a turret.

In a fit of moralizing, you probably did not notice the quotation marks in which the phrase that cut your eyes was taken. Or you do not know the meaning of these symbols. Well, I'm not offended, anything can happen.

[Egeny]

That's right, nothing to be offended. You are aware that remelting tank armor is an expensive undertaking.
It is easier to create new all-terrain vehicles, tractors, etc. on the basis of the platform.

[oldmetal]

"on the basis of the platform to create new all-terrain vehicles, tractors" The greater the technical illiteracy, the more valuable advice. Do you know how much a tank corps weighs? What are all-terrain vehicles and tractors?

[1 z1]

I know. Even half-forgotten knowledge from the course of metallurgy is enough to understand that when crossing "a stone bowl will not come out." And the fact that from 72 beshki, only the BODY remains (a nod to the physicist13) causes only positive feelings.

[Ilgizl]

By the way, great idea. Auxiliary equipment can be made armored instead of developing new vehicles. Remake under the need of mat.-tech. security.

[Vitaly.17]

There were reasonable projects to modernize the old T-72, T55, T64 tanks into unmanned versions with the installation of "brains" from the Uran robotic systems. It would have been better armor and more firepower. Where did it all go?

[Fizik13]

Quote: Vitaly.17

There were reasonable projects to modernize the old T-72, T55, T64 tanks into unmanned versions with the installation of "brains" from the Uran robotic systems. It would have been better armor and more firepower. Where did it all go?

Everything has its time!
But minesweepers, with remote control, based on the tank are already being used.

[Vitaly.17]

Quote from Fizik13

Everything has its time!

Time ended in February last year. Now our soldiers are dying. And the tanks are forced, after a couple of shots, to flee from positions so as not to get a screwdriver from some kind of ambush gun or ATGM. While robotic variants can not only conduct reconnaissance in combat to identify firing positions, but also be used as a firewall to destroy fortified areas. And then the version of the fireman based on MT-LB somehow did not impress. It's amazing that she crawled to the positions at all.

[oldmetal]

So nothing was ever born to go somewhere. As I understand it, the tests of combat robots in Syria did not end well.

[rotmistr60]

Quote: svp67

... than T55 and T-62

The article actually talks about upgrading the T-72B to the B3M level. And what about the T-55? As I understand it, this is malicious sarcasm on allegedly the appearance of the T-55 on LBS?

[lwxx]

demonstrated the process of turning the T-72B tank of the 1989 model into a modern B3M version iterations 2022 year.

Verbiage. And for the tank, where are the factory anti-drone screens? In the next branch, so many copies are broken.

[YOUR.]

Another retelling of the video?
Yes, the level of some "authors" is steadily striving for the plinth ...

[Aleks354]

There are no Russians, only Soviet ones?

[agond]

This is a rather controversial decision to switch from caterpillars with a serial hinge to a parallel one, supposedly they "allow you to increase the speed of reverse". 1.5 accelerated faster, fuel consumption is slightly lower, and in the rest of the price, weight and durability, it loses to the parallel one.

[Bad_gr]

Quote: agond

This is a rather controversial decision to switch from serial to parallel tracks, ...

Moreover, in production, the old caterpillar was simpler and many enterprises could make it, unlike the new one. In terms of patency, the old one is higher. The new one (with a parallel joint) allows you to move at a higher speed, but not in the sense that the article says (increase in reverse speed - ??)
But, apparently, this is done for unification, so that it would be the same on all tanks. The question arises only for the T-80 caterpillar - does the caterpillar have a rubber track from the inside, is it only different from this track?
By the way, the caterpillar with a parallel hinge has also changed: at first it had a straight tooth, now it has an oblique tooth on all.

[good]

price, weight and durability... you can go no further. War is just budget and logistics in the first place. If you can produce more for the same money and transport it easier, then this is a huge plus. And expanding additional production is not at all a problem. In the same Urals, there are a lot of enterprises that can make this product. And it seems to me that it is easier to change parallel

[Fitter65]

The Uralvagonzavod Corporation demonstrated the process of turning the T-72B tank of the 1989 model into a modern B3M version of the 2022 iteration.

Yes, these are all cartoons from Mosfilm. Look already in Russia, the T-62s are over. T-54 went to the troops.

Quote: ZhEK-Vodogrey

T-54s were sent to the front in the Zaporozhye region. The legendary tank of the Stalin era.

[viktor_ui]

In 87, in Borza3, these were used as targets at the training ground. I would also understand if they were equipped with modern SLAs and technical vision, and then one could say that this is such a sniper rifle of a very large caliber to help assault infantry at a distance. But this is frankly trash and modern MBT can simply crush them like nuts. This is more and more reminiscent of the parable "God take what is worthless to us"

[oldmetal]

CIPSO does not count. The comment will not even go for 30 cents (stupid).

[glock-17]

I do not think that the modernization of junk is the right way. It is necessary to introduce mass production of new tanks. To do this, you need to involve a network of factories. But the problem is that the industry is optimized or simply destroyed.

[storm]

Of course, the T-55 is many times more useful than the BMP - 1 or MT-Lb, due to tank armor and a tank gun, albeit not the most modern ...

[storm]

It would be much easier for the army to use only the same type of T-72B3M, train crews for them, supply units with the same ammunition, spare parts and consumables, especially since more than 7 thousand T-72s were in storage before the start of the SVO.

But the Ministry of Defense has such an unsuccessful leadership, which for 20 years cannot adequately provide the army with not new equipment, not modernized.

[good]

T72Bs are being upgraded, there are not 7 of them. Upgrading the A version is noticeably more expensive and longer, because they are not used for these purposes, but new T90s are produced. T62 and T55 are taken from the eastern districts, in fact, new ones, there are plenty of them and full of ammunition for them, and you can also produce ammunition, the equipment is available and they still produce ammunition for export for operators in exotic countries. They hang DZ on the T62, their fragmentation shells are suitable, you can bury it, if anything, at checkpoints, in oporniks. Well, MO is like everywhere else. If you are not going to fight en masse, then why spend a bunch of money to stand and rust. In Europe, no one really has tanks yet either, and Soviet stocks have already been disposed of in Ukraine and their old stocks are being prepared there already in the form of Leo-1. When more expensive ones will be made. The current states in the desert have abrams and also require serious funds for modernization.

[Kuziming]

How I waited for this... Why so late. But better late than never. Respect for technicians!