Military Review

T-72MP: modernization with the help of the Czechs and the French

30
T-72MP: modernization with the help of the Czechs and the French



The modernization of the “seventy-two” to the T-72MP level, in fact, was the first experience of international cooperation of the Kharkov Design Bureau of Mechanical Engineering with foreign partners of this level. As a result, in the mid-90s, a variant of the Soviet tank with enhanced performance characteristics.

With the help of French specialists, the modern fire control system "SAVAN 15" was installed. The gunner's automated sight with a stabilized in two planes field of view provides for the detection and identification of targets by day at a distance of 5 km. At night, with the help of a thermal imaging channel, at distances up to 3000 m.



The automatic recording of deviations of the shooting conditions from normal ones is carried out with the help of a high-precision digital ballistic computer. The tank commander got a panoramic VS 580 sight stabilized in two planes. The image from the thermal imager of the gunner was broadcast on a monitor mounted in front of it.



The mobility of the tank increased due to the installation of diesel engines: 6TD-1 horsepower 1000. or 6TD-2 horsepower 1200 The transmission was also refined, as a result, the tank was able to reach speeds of more than 70 km / h ahead and 34 km / h in reverse.

The tank received an advanced built-in dynamic protection, which is able to withstand not only cumulative, but also sub-caliber projectiles, as well as a complex of optical-electronic countermeasures.



Armament of the tank remains the same - 125-mm gun. As a result of all the innovations, the weight of the tank increased to 45,5 t.

The experience of working on the T-72MP came in handy later, when creating even more advanced machines.

Originator:
http://vestnik-rm.ru/news-4-4558.htm
30 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. tttttt
    tttttt 8 May 2013 09: 51 New
    29
    So, just don’t touch Kharkovites. In the conditions that they work, praise and honor to them for the saved design bureau and factory.
    1. svp67
      svp67 8 May 2013 09: 59 New
      +1
      Quote: tttttt
      So, just don’t touch Kharkovites.
      And why is this? That is, you think that it is not worth discussing what they produce? What then washed away the comments. No, it's worth touching and discussing. And frankly, I have comments on this model:
      - it was definitely worthwhile to establish a "crazy MH for BPS of increased power"
      -and apparently it was worth changing the rollers to "eight-day", this would facilitate the chassis and even increase the dynamism
    2. family
      family tree 8 May 2013 18: 16 New
      +6
      Quote: tttttt
      So, just don’t touch Kharkovites. In the conditions that they work, praise and honor to them for the saved design bureau and factory.

      Yes, already tired of touching them. Just sometimes annoying aggressive advertising policies. Associations arise, for some reason, on TV, they annoyingly try to boil some kind of crap, such as "Doshirak", but do not advertise red caviar. So, between the way.
    3. datur
      datur 8 May 2013 20: 31 New
      +4
      tttttt] So, just don’t touch Kharkovites. Under the conditions that they work, praise and honor to them for saving the design bureaus and our factory, and ours, have not been receiving gingerbread tea all these years! yes
  2. svp67
    svp67 8 May 2013 10: 02 New
    +4
    And here is T72MP but without the "Curtain" and with the native "seventy-two" caterpillar
    1. bask
      bask 8 May 2013 14: 08 New
      +3
      The tank received an advanced built-in dynamic protection, which is able to resist not only

      The main problem is the problem of the T-64, T-72, T-80 series tanks, this is the detonation of BC.
      On all modern Western and South Korean, Japanese, Israeli tanks, there are kick panels.
      Omichi did similar on the tank, Black Eagle, BC was located in the rear of the tower, with kick panels.
      But it is more reliable that the BC was in the tank’s hull, but was separated from the crew by an armored partition and had kick-off panels.
      But with all T-72 upgrades, this problem has not been resolved.
      KhVTZ proposed that the BMT-72 was created on the basis of the T-72 tank, after its modernization. Due to the compact size of the 6TD-1 engines, it has become possible to place an airborne compartment for 5 paratroopers .. The airborne compartment is located between the combat and engine-transmission compartments. In the roof of the car body, in the airborne compartment, hatches for landing and landing are made. THIS IS THE MAIN THING !!!
      Instead of landing for 5 people .. IT IS POSSIBLE TO PLACE THE WHOLE BC, BEYOND THE ARMOR DIVISION, SEPARATING IT FROM THE BATTLE DIVISION-CREW.! Hatches in the roof for landing are ready-made kick panels!
      It is only necessary to re-design the automatic loader. All.
      Such modernization of the T-72 has not yet been carried out. I think the best option! What are the thoughts about this forum users?
      1. Prohor
        Prohor 8 May 2013 14: 59 New
        +2
        A large ratio of length: width - will not affect the driving performance of such a tank (with 7 track rollers)? In the literature, the “squareness” of the “Tiger” is interpreted as a factor that improves handling, maneuverability and maneuverability.
        AZ is also, perhaps, difficult to come out with such a placement of the BC.
        1. bask
          bask 8 May 2013 17: 35 New
          +1
          Quote: Prokhor
          A large ratio of length: width - will it not affect the driving performance of such a tank (with 7 supporting

          But it doesn’t radically affect 7 rollers on board. It is necessary to increase the length of the hull and with the location of the BK in a horizontal location. In the horizontal AZ, the tower’s weight, its dimensions are dramatically increased, it’s easier to get into it, it is vulnerable.
          There are no other options. Or manual loading.
          Tank ,, black eagle ,,
          1. Bad_gr
            Bad_gr 8 May 2013 17: 45 New
            +1
            Quote: bask
            But it does not radically affect. 7 rollers on board.

            The "Black Eagle" rollers from the T-80, they are small. Accordingly, the length of the tank is less than that of an elongated 72-ki.
      2. Bad_gr
        Bad_gr 8 May 2013 17: 27 New
        +1
        Quote: bask
        Due to the compact size of 6TD-1 engines, it has become possible to place an airborne squad for 5 paratroopers .. The airborne squad is located between the combat and engine-transmission squads.

        The landing compartment did not fit due to the compactness of the engine compartment, but due to the lengthening of the tank by almost a meter (I even had to add another skating rink).
        The engine compartment with the 6TD-1 engine is almost the same in volume as the B2 engine.
        Engine compartment with 5TD. Additionally, only the APU is placed. And 6TD-1 will be larger.
        1. bask
          bask 8 May 2013 18: 09 New
          +1
          Quote: Bad_gr
          the troop compartment did not fit due to the compactness of the engine compartment, but due to the lengthening of the tank by almost

          The length of the tank on the 1st dead, something fundamentally changing?
          I say that such an MBT lineup decides radically about the safe placement of the VK. Frequent issues with the engine and automatic loader are solved.
          The second option, the placement of BC in the rear of the tower, But this increases the size and increase to the incredible weight of the tower. You probably saw a photo, presumably M1A ,, Abrams, with an automatic loader. What are the dimensions of the tower!
          Another option. Automatic loader for MBT with a tower, the German tank ,, Leopard-2 ,,. Here, a very significant volume in the tower is occupied by the loader of the automatic loader, Krauss-Maffei.
          1. Bad_gr
            Bad_gr 8 May 2013 18: 47 New
            +1
            Quote: bask
            I say that such an MBT lineup decides radically about the safe placement of the VK. Frequent issues with the engine and automatic loader are solved.

            We had an “Object-187”, a contender for the title of T-90, but due to the fact that it was not cheap, it didn’t go into production. It was 30 cm longer than the T-72 (T-90), but thanks to this the notorious "neckline" (weakened zone in the area of ​​the viewing devices of the driver) was removed.

            In general, it would be possible to take this “object” as a basis, position the gunner and commander on both sides of the driver (having slightly shifted back), and separate them from the rest of the tank with armor see in 4th (in “Abrams” the thickness of the armored door between the crew and shells 2 cm). Modern panoramic commander observation devices do not have an optical channel, so there is no difference where the commander is sitting (in the tower or in the hull). Give the same observation device to the gunner and "voila!" - we have a cheap and cheerful tank with good survival for the crew, with other parameters comparable to foreign tanks. The main thing: in the tank there is only the ammunition that fit in the conveyor and the one in the crazy niche (like the T-90ms) just in case. Judging by the ammunition of modern Japanese tanks, 22 in the conveyor +10 behind the tower, for the battle should be enough for the eyes. What is not an option for the modernization of old equipment (T72-80-90)?

            Where am I mistaken?
            1. bask
              bask 8 May 2013 19: 33 New
              +1
              Quote: Bad_gr
              Modern panoramic commander observation devices do not have an optical channel, so there is no difference where the commander is sitting (in the tower or in the hull). Give the same

              Such a project was discussed on other sites.
              Inhabited tower: the location of the BC modern MBT can be divided into three groups.
              1. The placement of the main part or the entire ammunition in the T-64, T-72, T-80, ,, Challenger, ”corps.
              2. Accommodation BC in the building and tower Leopard-2, ,, Leclerc ,,,.
              3. Placement of the main ammunition ammunition in the tower M1A2, Abrams ,,.
              Placing the main part of the CD in a less vulnerable building. Improves the survival of MBT.
              Uninhabited tower.
              1. OBT crew of 2 people and an uninhabited tower.
              2. With a crew of 3 people and an uninhabited tower.
              3. A variant of the tank with a crew of 3 people, a classic layout and an automatic loader. With the placement of the commander in the tower.
              You offer the second option with an uninhabited tower.
              I am inclined to the fact that there should be visual control. And in your version only the front hemisphere is visible.
            2. bask
              bask 8 May 2013 20: 03 New
              0
              Quote: Bad_gr
              in general, it would be possible to take this “object” as a basis, position the gunner and commander on both sides of the driver (slightly shifted back), and separate them from the rest of the tank with armor see in 4th (in the Abrams, the thickness of the armored door between the crew and shells 2 cm

              I carefully read your post, you suggest, too, but by placing the crew in the MBT corps, in front of the BC. The tower remains uninhabited. This is not a modernization, but a new tank.
              The development of the KhVTZ, BMP-72, is much cheaper both in the manufacture of the hull and in the provision of the LMS with panoramic complexes.
              The main tower remains inhabited, with the existing observation devices. We isolate only the BC .. To create-modernization, only an automatic loader should be halfway.
              Everything. And not what BC in the tower, everything fits in the case.
              Even with detonation ((panels)), the tower with the crew remains intact, and even if damaged, the crew has time to evacuate.
              This placement of the BC, has not been used on more than one tank, may be wrong?
              1. Bad_gr
                Bad_gr 8 May 2013 21: 48 New
                +1
                Quote: bask
                This placement of the BC, has not been used on more than one tank, may be wrong?

                Automatic ammunition in the hull had a Swedish tank STRV-103. But he doesn’t have a rotating tower.
                Kharkov Design Bureau at one time developed the "Object-477" (aka "Boxer", aka "Hammer"). The loading mechanism with ammunition was in the case, in two drums, on both sides of the gun. But all this economy rotated with the tower. I can’t imagine how to make a loading mechanism with the supply of shells from an ammunition stand still with respect to the tower of the hull. Moreover, at the level of modernization.

                The remains of "Object-477"
                1. Lopatov
                  Lopatov 8 May 2013 22: 11 New
                  +1
                  Quote: Bad_gr
                  How to make a loading mechanism with the supply of shells from an ammunition shell stationary in relation to the tower tower, I can’t imagine

                  Through the coordinator.
                  1. bask
                    bask 8 May 2013 22: 58 New
                    0
                    Quote: Spade
                    Through the coordinator.

                    Exactly, they shot at the 1st World War, machine guns through the propeller screw, on airplanes, using a synchronizer.
                2. bask
                  bask 8 May 2013 22: 43 New
                  +1
                  Quote: Bad_gr
                  Kharkov Design Bureau at one time developed the "Object-477" (aka "Boxer", aka "Hammer")

                  BK-34
                  When using a reversing charging module. The module contains 10 shots, which can be replenished as they are spent from two modules of 12 shots each. An old scheme of the early 90's
                  Quote: Bad_gr
                  together with the tower. I can’t imagine how to make a loading mechanism with the supply of shells from an ammunition stand still with respect to the tower of the hull. Moreover, at the level of modernization.

                  And why can’t you synchronize the supply of ammunition to the automatic loader and the rotation of the tower?
                  According to the same, revolving, scheme. The barrel is a tower.
                  Modernization - when there is no radical intervention in the construction of the hull and turret.
                  Here it is necessary to create a new automatic loader.
                  Maybe this will not be an achievable task.
                  But it is painful that the prospects are tempting to take the BK out of the fighting compartment, leaving the MBT tower inhabited.
                  Even at the price of MBT with an inhabited tower it will be several times cheaper, with an uninhabited one.
              2. Kars
                Kars 8 May 2013 21: 57 New
                +1
                I don’t understand why not use mechanisms similar to self-propelled guns Donar?
                1. Lopatov
                  Lopatov 8 May 2013 22: 07 New
                  +1
                  This is not necessary for a tank. Howitzer loading mechanisms have one common requirement - the preservation of the tip during loading to reduce technical dispersion. Direct fire tank does not have such restrictions
                  1. Kars
                    Kars 8 May 2013 22: 17 New
                    0
                    Quote: Spade
                    This is not necessary for the tank

                    Did I say that it is impossible to modify? For example, to reduce the elevation angle, to refuse from a modular charge. Even the caliber can be taken less.
                    1. Lopatov
                      Lopatov 8 May 2013 22: 40 New
                      +1
                      Quote: Kars
                      refusal of a modular charge.

                      What for? Conversely, modular is easier. They are corny the same. Just for the sub-caliber they need more, but for the cumulative less. The task for internal ballistics, of course, is difficult, but quite feasible.
                      And HE shells can be used at different speeds, that is, along different trajectories. It is necessary to charge in the wall, more, For the wall to throw, less. And a particularly large elevation angle is not required, the HE shell quickly loses speed.

                      By the way, there is another plus - it will be possible to separate the shells and charges. Modules along with sub-caliber can be kept in the aft niche of the tower.
                      1. Kars
                        Kars 9 May 2013 09: 41 New
                        0
                        Quote: Spade
                        growth for the sub-caliber requires more, but for the cumulative less.

                        Who said such a strange thing?
                        Quote: Spade
                        And HE shells can be used at different speeds, that is, along different paths

                        You don’t like howitzer loading, then you like howitzer loading.
                        Quote: Spade
                        This is not necessary for a tank.

                        ))))))))))))))
                      2. Lopatov
                        Lopatov 9 May 2013 22: 50 New
                        +1
                        Quote: Kars
                        Who said such a strange thing?

                        I already know that. Look at the sub-caliber tank shell. Part of the charge is placed on it.
                        Quote: Kars
                        You don’t like howitzer loading, then you like howitzer loading.


                        There are different things. For art. tools its conclusion to a certain angle for loading is unacceptable. As far as I know, only the Germans managed to maintain accuracy with this method, and then on the 82-mm mortar based on the Wiesel
                        This is not necessary for the tank. Which greatly simplifies the coordination of the loading mechanism with the barrel.

                        Look, for example, we charge the tank without bringing the barrel to the loading angle
                        1. The coordinator accepts a shell from a mechanized warhead
                        2. It is rotated so that the axis of the projectile coincides with the axis of the barrel horizontally and rises.
                        3. The swinging part of the coordinator takes the same angle as the angle of elevation of the gun, while the height from the bottom of the tank at different angles will be different.

                        Bring the barrel to the loading angle, and the coordinator will be three times easier - only the horizontal angle with a fixed height from the bottom and angle.
                      3. Kars
                        Kars 10 May 2013 14: 15 New
                        +1
                        Quote: Spade
                        I already know that. Look at the sub-caliber tank shell. It contains a portion of the charge

                        And so with that, this all-in-all means that there is a place. There is simply no more room for gunpowder in the KS and OFS, but everyone would love to increase their initial speed (tank guns naturally)
                        Quote: Spade
                        There are different things. For art. guns its withdrawal at a certain angle for loading is unacceptable

                        Of course I am wildly sorry, but so many howitzers have a constant charging angle.
                        Quote: Spade
                        This is not necessary for the tank. Which greatly simplifies the coordination of the loading mechanism with the barrel

                        Then I don’t understand what kind of claim, it even simplifies the system, or doesn’t affect it at all,


                        let's go back to the beginning - Can I use a machine / charging mechanism from a German self-propelled gun Donnar on a promising tank?
  3. Yemelya
    Yemelya 8 May 2013 23: 31 New
    +1
    Quote: bask
    Instead of a landing for 5 people .. IT IS POSSIBLE TO PLACE THE WHOLE BC, FOR THE ARMOR Baffle, SEPARATING IT FROM THE BATTLE DIVISION-CREW.!


    If only in this very partition the window closing with an armored shutter is made, an assembly supplying ammunition from the partition, charging to plant (increasing the tower) and an assembly facilitating loading - then, probably, it’s possible ... but difficult.
  • Canep
    Canep 8 May 2013 10: 23 New
    +1
    The mobility of the tank increased due to the installation of diesel engines: 6TD-1 with a capacity of 1000 hp or 6TD-2 with a capacity of 1200 hp
    The T-64 at one time had serious problems with the 6TD-1 engine, and now the Kharkiv decided to install it on the T-72, and they came up with a more powerful option (6TD-2).
    I doubt that the reliability of this engine has been improved, so this modernization is likely to worsen the tank. French sights means you can set, but Russian engines can not.
    1. Algor73
      Algor73 8 May 2013 10: 39 New
      0
      You have read information about the unreliability of such engines 40 years ago. "Children's diseases" have already sunk into oblivion. The motor is complex, but reliable and high-torque, surpasses four-stroke engines in some qualities. True, it has drawbacks.
      1. svp67
        svp67 8 May 2013 10: 55 New
        +1
        Quote: Algor73
        "Children's diseases" have already sunk into oblivion.
        That's right - there are "inherent flaws", the main of which is increased fuel and oil consumption ...
    2. svp67
      svp67 8 May 2013 10: 44 New
      +3
      Quote: Canep
      T-64 at one time had serious problems with the 6TD-1 engine
      This engine was designed for the T80UD tank. Although his samples were tested on T64, in particular with a modified ChP. But 64TDF is still optimal for Т5, in all its modifications ... And frankly, we did NOT experience any SPECIAL problems with 6TD, it is clearly more reliable than the "five"
  • neri73-r
    neri73-r 8 May 2013 11: 52 New
    -2
    The experience of working on the T-72MP came in handy later, when creating even more advanced machines.


    This is what ???????????????? T-84 "Hold"? So in it is a breakthrough-new ???????
    1. Larus
      Larus 8 May 2013 17: 25 New
      0
      The last sentence made me think, but I didn’t remember anything perfect, or the author from the future wrote .....
    2. Alexander D.
      Alexander D. 8 May 2013 22: 54 New
      0
      Go to the HCMB website. They have several types of modernization of the T-72. So they took into account the experience of modernization. And the Oplot has the same relation to the T-72 as the T-90MS to the T-80.
      1. svp67
        svp67 8 May 2013 22: 59 New
        0
        Quote: Alexander D.
        . And the "Hold" has the same relation to T-72 as T-90MS to T-80.
        And here you are, Alexander got a "finger in .... the sky." If you can still agree with the first, then alas, no. Since during the modernization of T72, many solutions were used applied on T80U, as a result of which T90 appeared ...
        1. Alexander D.
          Alexander D. 8 May 2013 23: 48 New
          0
          I enjoy reading what they have in common, other than weapons?
  • svp67
    svp67 9 May 2013 14: 04 New
    0
    Quote: Alexander D.
    I enjoy reading what they have in common, other than weapons?

    Having at that time nothing better than the fire control complex (KUO) 80A80 Irtysh already worked out on the T-1У and T-45UD tanks, they decided to install it on the T-72БМ. This solution, in addition, significantly reduced the cost of upgrading the machine and helped to increase the degree of unification between domestic tanks.

    This is what they write in open sources, in addition, they are used - the PPO system, ZPU, some solutions of the OPVT elements, the caterpillar track along with the crown of the VK and many more small things ...
    1. Alexander D.
      Alexander D. 9 May 2013 22: 25 New
      0
      Thanks for the info, but it's about the T-90, and I mean the latest Russian development of the T-90MS. Everything there is a little different and unlike the T-80.
      1. svp67
        svp67 10 May 2013 01: 39 New
        0
        Quote: Alexander D.
        Thanks for the info, but it's about the T-90, and I mean the latest Russian development of the T-90MS. Everything there is a little different and unlike the T-80.
        That is, the PPO, OPVT system, the heater at "MS" are different? No, these components and assemblies remained the same ...