Military Review

Slovak modernization of the Soviet tank. T-72M2 Moderna

33
In the mid-seventies, the Czechoslovak plant ZTS Dubnica received technical documentation for the licensed production of Soviet main tanks T-72M. Over the next decade, the company produced several hundred vehicles that were delivered to the armies of Czechoslovakia and other countries of the socialist bloc. Due to the geopolitical processes that swept Eastern Europe in the late eighties, the Czechoslovak plant began to slow down production. Potential customers had no time to purchase armored vehicles, which is why stories factory ZTS Dubnica began hard times. Another serious blow to the enterprise was the statements of the country's leadership: in 1990, the new government promised to close military production in Czechoslovakia.


Slovak modernization of the Soviet tank. T-72M2 Moderna


After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the tank builders from Dubnica nad Vahom were left without the support of a “senior comrade”. In this regard, the designers of the ZTS plant began work on their own versions of the modernization of the T-72M tank. Changes in the foreign policy of Czechoslovakia attracted the attention of foreign manufacturers of weapons and military electronics, which could be used to improve tanks. However, such cooperation until a certain time was impossible. It was hampered by a host of political and economic problems. Because of this, ZTS Dubnica was able to join forces with foreign organizations only after the collapse of Czechoslovakia.

Within just a few weeks after the collapse of the country, the military of independent Slovakia came to the conclusion that it was necessary to create their own tank capable of withstanding foreign military vehicles. In view of the not-too-great opportunities, it was intended to temporarily confine ourselves to a deep modernization of the existing T-72M. The military department issued requirements for the new car, and also hinted to tank builders that they would have to make a tank suitable for export, since the economic possibilities of the Slovak army were not sufficient to maintain full production.

It was with an eye to selling to third countries that foreign electronic systems were chosen to equip the new tank. ZTS has chosen the French company SFIM and the Belgian SABCA as partners in the modernization of the T-72M. These foreign organizations have become the main partners and suppliers of Slovak tank builders. The modernization project, called the T-72М2 Moderna (sometimes the designation T-72М1 is found), was created taking into account the maximum use of the available possibilities and, as a result, the minimal change in the design of the combat vehicle.


View of the T-72М2 "Modern" tank in front, showing the elements of dynamic protection on the turret, as well as the innovative placement of two containers with 20-mm anti-aircraft guns on the sides of the turret


To improve the ride quality, the T-72М2 tank received a new S12U diesel engine with 850 horsepower. This engine was the Slovak version of the Soviet B-46, refined and forced. The transmission has also been upgraded due to a more powerful engine. Looking ahead, it is worth saying that the ready-made tank “Modern” after all the innovations was heavier to 43,5 tons. However, due to the use of a more powerful engine, the driving performance was slightly improved. For example, the average speed over rough terrain increased by about 10%. Also managed to slightly reduce fuel consumption. This was achieved with the help of a new engine management system with an integrated computer. The French-made DSM-16 could collect information about the engine and promptly notify the driver about any problems.

Great changes have undergone tank defense systems. In place of the standard dynamic protection of the base tank on the "Modern" installed a new complex DYNAS. The characteristic boxes of this system covered the forehead of the tower and the hull, as well as most of the sides. To counter various systems using optical channels or lasers, the T-72М2 tank received the Galix universal smoke grenade launchers. It was alleged that they could shoot smoke grenades, false heat targets, as well as special fragmentation ammunition designed to destroy enemy infantry. Also included in the protection complex were laser radiation detection equipment, protection systems against weapons mass destruction, etc. It was especially emphasized that the DEUGRA fire extinguishing system is able to extinguish the fire in the combat compartment in just 150-200 milliseconds.

The turret of the tank remained the same - the 125-mm smooth-bore gun-launcher 2A46 and the 7,62-mm PKT machine gun paired with it. At the same time, systems designed to control armaments were almost completely changed. Equipment for the new T-72М2 tank was designed with the expectation of simplifying modernization. Most of the devices could be installed in the old places without additional modifications. Thus, the TIS thermal imaging equipment of the VEGA fire control system in its dimensions corresponded to the sight of the TPR-1 gunner. Thanks to this feature, TIS could be installed on the same place, while the controls and the periscope block of the sight remained in place. The VEGA control systems were also combined with the old laser rangefinder and guidance systems available on the base tank. It is worth noting that the bulk of the devices in the fire control system was a new development. It was a ballistic computer, a set of sensors, etc. equipment of French and Belgian production.




To simplify the production of Moderna tanks and equipment for them, the commander’s workplace was proposed to equip with a SFIM panoramic sight VS-580. It is noteworthy that by that time this sight was used on the Belgian tanks Leopard 1, the French AMX-56 Leclerc and several other modern main tanks. The VS-580 panoramic sight stabilized in two planes made it possible to observe the entire surrounding space without dead zones in azimuth. The sight made it possible to find targets before they entered the affected area, and after approaching the desired distance, aim and attack them.

Also developed a new SUO VEGA Plus with higher performance. It differed from the original VEGA system in the presence of several modules that enhanced its characteristics and usability. As far as we know, VEGA Plus was not installed on prototypes of the new tank.

The armament complex of the prospective T-72М2 tank was supplemented with two additional weapons. Two special KAA-200 automatic guns of 20 caliber of millimeters with ammunition were placed in special lifting containers in the back of the turret. Management tools tied to the commander's panoramic sight. The mechanics made it possible to direct guns vertically in the range from -4 to + 35 degrees. Horizontal guidance was supposed to be performed by turning the entire tower. Additional small-caliber guns were intended to destroy lightly armored vehicles and enemy personnel on the ground, as well as to destroy low-flying aircraft in the shelling zone. Initially, two 20-mm guns were mounted on prototypes of the Modern tank. However, in the future, due to the ambiguity of the obtained characteristics, they were replaced by a single 30-millimeter 2А42, borrowed from the Soviet infantry fighting vehicle BMP-2.

Significant changes in communications equipment. All available devices were removed from the tank, and in their place a new BAMS radio station was installed. She worked in the frequency range from 30 to 108 MHz and had the ability to quickly change the operating frequency. In addition, the radio station allowed not only to carry out voice communication, but also to transmit data in digital form. BAMS integrated a digital tank intercom with active noise cancellation. After a small adjustment of the communication system of the T-72М2 tank, it was possible to exchange information with any modern European tank.

Tank T-72М2 Moderna was demonstrated several times at trade shows, starting from the year 1993. It was positioned not only as a new combat vehicle for the Slovak ground forces, but also as a tank available for purchase by third countries. The advertising of "Modern" constantly mentioned the fact that this tank was the first joint development of the countries of Western and Eastern Europe after the end of the Cold War. However, this “advantage” did not interest anyone. Most of the countries that were armed with T-72 tanks, for economic reasons, could not order their modernization to the state of "М2". Other potential buyers from Europe, in turn, did not need tanks based on the Soviet T-72 at all.

As a result, the tank "Modern" remained unclaimed. Foreign customers were not interested in them, and the armed forces of Slovakia experienced serious problems with financing. Because of this, the T-72М2 did not go into the series, and the built prototypes (no more than two machines are mentioned in different sources), according to some data, were converted into T-72М and went to the front units.


On the upgraded version of the tank "Modern" 2X20 mm guns along the sides of the turret are replaced with one 30 mm gun located on the starboard side of the tower. (Photo Tomas Bouchal)











On the materials of the sites:
http://armor.kiev.ua/
http://btvt.narod.ru/
http://vestnik-rm.ru/
http://army-guide.com/
Author:
33 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Mikhado
    Mikhado 17 June 2013 08: 07 New
    +9
    I wonder how they coped with the impact of the recoil of an asymmetric 30 mm gun on the turret rotation mechanism. Knowing that the gun is not weak, the deploying impulse should be decent. In general, the auxiliary shooter is one of the main advantages and chips of this machine.
    1. chaushevski
      chaushevski 17 June 2013 09: 11 New
      +3
      the idea is not bad, of course, if we could make these guns independent, then in the city we could do without a BMP
      1. Akim
        Akim 17 June 2013 09: 32 New
        +3
        Quote: chaushevski
        a good idea, of course, if these guns were independent

        Kharkiv citizens developed their idea with an independent 23-2 mm module in Т64Е. But it turns out they were the first.
        1. Flooding
          Flooding 17 June 2013 11: 51 New
          +1
          Quote: Akim
          Kharkov residents developed their idea with an independent 23-2 mm module in the T64E.

          Developed? What is the development? It seemed to me that they used the Slovak idea.
          1. Akim
            Akim 17 June 2013 12: 05 New
            +8
            Quote: Flood
            It seemed to me that they used the Slovak idea.

            I think you can see the differences. Automata can change horizontal aiming without turning the tower. The anti-aircraft machine gun was simply replaced by guns.
            1. Flooding
              Flooding 17 June 2013 12: 30 New
              +2
              Yes you are right. Shaped memory is a tricky thing.
              I saw a photo of the T-64E, but nevertheless it was the decision of the Slovaks that was postponed.
              Apparently made a stronger impression :)
        2. self-propelled
          self-propelled 17 June 2013 12: 28 New
          +3
          Quote: Akim
          Kharkiv citizens developed their idea with an independent 23-2 mm module in Т64Е. But it turns out they were the first.

          and there was also a promising development at one time, the T-74 or "object 450", on which, at different times, it was proposed to use up to two 7,62 mm machine guns paired with a cannon or even stabilized 30-mm automatic gun. In the latest versions of the project, the automatic gun received the status of anti-aircraft weapons. Such weapons were supposed to provide sufficient firepower to destroy modern air targets, such as helicopters. Aiming anti-aircraft guns was planned to be carried out using remote control systems with a video channel aiming. In addition, in the future it was possible to equip the 30-mm automatic gun with a radar range finder and a ballistic computer ...
          "Object 450" KMDB Morozov

          though the tank remained "on paper" ...
          1. Akim
            Akim 17 June 2013 12: 38 New
            +2
            Quote: self-propelled
            and there was also a promising development at one time T-74 or "object 450",

            Did not know. But the "paper" tank is not an indicator. So you can walk to Lucas' Star Wars.
            1. self-propelled
              self-propelled 17 June 2013 12: 57 New
              +2
              Quote: Akim
              Did not know. But the "paper" tank is not an indicator. So you can walk to Lucas' Star Wars.

              the fact is that the chief designer of HCMB A.A. Morozov described in some detail the design of this machine (by the way, developed on its own initiative). And, in principle, there was nothing supernatural (which could not have been done at that time) in the design of the tank. The exact reasons for the closure of the project are not known. Perhaps the complexity and novelty of the design, and the need for long deadlines for the completion of development and refinement, affected ... request
              1. Bad_gr
                Bad_gr 22 June 2013 10: 43 New
                0
                Quote: self-propelled
                The exact reasons for the closure of the project are not known. Perhaps the complexity and novelty of the design, and the need for long deadlines for the completion of development and refinement, affected ... request
                After Object 450, there was a more advanced Object 477 ("Boxer", aka "Hammer"), so there was no point in developing the theme of the 450th.
    2. bereg
      bereg 17 June 2013 13: 06 New
      +2
      30 mm recoil in the region of 5 tons
  2. RPD
    RPD 17 June 2013 08: 48 New
    +1
    yeah seem nice
  3. Aeneas
    Aeneas 17 June 2013 08: 59 New
    +9
    Two anti-aircraft guns plus the main gun, so the BMPT turned out to be more powerful than the Terminator.
  4. LaGlobal
    LaGlobal 17 June 2013 09: 26 New
    +2
    And what, the combat unit is quite good and looks, so to speak, ahead of its time, judging by the photos. TTX tanks I do not know (for this I minus). But what I liked was the auxiliary cannons on both sides and incendiary rockets or a smoke screen (please correct if I'm wrong).
    Actually well done.
    1. Alexander D.
      Alexander D. 17 June 2013 21: 21 New
      +2
      This modernization did not justify itself - too much firepower and very good MSA for such a tank. Moreover, relatively mediocre mobility characteristics (specific power 19,7 hp / t) and it is not known what DZ with relatively weak KAZ was done on (only aerosol grenades - even the T-90 looks preferable in this regard).
  5. Yun Klob
    Yun Klob 17 June 2013 09: 34 New
    +2
    Well done.
  6. Raul
    Raul 17 June 2013 09: 50 New
    +1
    Two anti-aircraft guns are impressive. I think that in Armata will also be installed 30mm NAP with BMP-2 on the right side of the tower?
    1. Orlenok ILLI4A
      Orlenok ILLI4A 15 August 2015 10: 23 New
      0
      I agree, otherwise why is there so much free space, that's just on the left.
  7. shamil
    shamil 17 June 2013 10: 10 New
    +1
    looks wow so hung up with dynamic protection yes the pulits put it and that's it
  8. Roll
    Roll 17 June 2013 10: 38 New
    +5
    wassat Small-caliber guns are put in vain, in a modern battle the tank still doesn’t have anything to do without the support of armored cars or infantry fighting vehicles, and armored cars, with fighters from man-portable air defense systems, or infantry fighting vehicles or specialized anti-aircraft guns should take a fight against air targets.
    1. Akim
      Akim 17 June 2013 11: 16 New
      +1
      Quote: Rolm
      , in a modern battle, a tank doesn’t have anything to do without armored cars or BMP support

      And if the battle in the city and the tank were cut off from support. An ordinary tank is a suicide bomber.
      1. Alexander D.
        Alexander D. 17 June 2013 21: 15 New
        +2
        Quote: Akim
        Quote: Rolm
        , in a modern battle, a tank doesn’t have anything to do without armored cars or BMP support

        And if the battle in the city and the tank were cut off from support. An ordinary tank is a suicide bomber.

        Everything is simple here - there is nothing to let tanks in front of the infantry in the city!
  9. basil200
    basil200 17 June 2013 10: 55 New
    +1
    Here is the grille, how well does it protect?
    1. avdkrd
      avdkrd 17 June 2013 11: 49 New
      +2
      from RPGs is quite effective (either makes a grenade work at a non-optimal distance, or even destroys it without detonation), against BPS and BOPS - nothing at all.
      1. Bad_gr
        Bad_gr 17 June 2013 19: 24 New
        +5
        Quote: basil200
        Here is the grille, how well does it protect?

        1. Crang
          Crang 17 June 2013 23: 17 New
          -3
          You are not reasoning correctly.
  10. Astartes
    Astartes 17 June 2013 11: 55 New
    0
    A beautiful solution, of course, but the effectiveness of the turret anti-aircraft guns still needs to be "looked at". So we can already say that they have a horizontal firing sector regulated by turning the turret, so from the sides, when fighting, the tank is not protected.
  11. Venguard
    Venguard 17 June 2013 12: 36 New
    +1
    there the recoil will not be very big, it's still a t-72 tower and not a combat module like the "terminator"
    1. neri73-r
      neri73-r 17 June 2013 17: 10 New
      +1
      return there will be several tons !!! For example, the GSh-30 has 5500 kgf!
  12. Genady1976
    Genady1976 17 June 2013 17: 03 New
    +1
    Well done and Slovaks and Ukrainians good
  13. bazilio
    bazilio 17 June 2013 17: 06 New
    +1
    The idea may be good, but it was let down by the economic aspect. Who would be interested in this tank? Or countries that inherited the T72 from the USSR, but then it was not about buying new tanks, but about modernizing existing ones. Or countries with a modest defense budget. But in this segment the competition is big and primarily because of used equipment, again the very same bushy T72. In the first case, it seems to me that having a T72 and taking into account the cost of modernization (and it will certainly cost Pts expensive), it seems to me that it’s better to dig up and buy new and more modern tanks.
    I agree with my comrades regarding the automatic gun, without the ability to rotate horizontally separately from the tower. plane, you’ll not use it effectively. This remark is valid in cases of battle in the city or in situations when it is necessary to peel from the main caliber and shoot from turntables
  14. Crang
    Crang 17 June 2013 17: 42 New
    -5
    Great tank! Competent modernization. But if you want to debate, you need to call Kars. Do you want to call? Well, okay - I call: "T-84 shit and remained at the level of the 80s!"
    SchA will come.
    1. Kars
      Kars 17 June 2013 21: 51 New
      +4
      Quote: Krang
      Scha will come

      what do you download? on the topic - you’re bored with it, you don’t even know what your speed with the T-90A is?
    2. Alexander D.
      Alexander D. 17 June 2013 22: 12 New
      +1
      Quote: Krang
      Great tank! Competent modernization. But if you want to debate, you need to call Kars. Do you want to call? Well, okay - I call: "T-84 shit and remained at the level of the 80s!"
      SchA will come.

      This commentary speaks exclusively about your educational level and communication culture and nothing more.
  15. Strashila
    Strashila 17 June 2013 20: 31 New
    +3
    An interesting solution, if you cross with the Kharkiv version on the t-64e, will be nothing at all. The guns can be replaced with automatic grenade launchers or with a block with bumblebees, the main elevation angles are normal, especially for the city.
  16. Crang
    Crang 17 June 2013 20: 35 New
    -4
    Quote: Strashila
    An interesting solution, if you cross with the Kharkiv version on the t-64e, will be nothing at all. The guns can be replaced with automatic grenade launchers or with a block with bumblebees, the main elevation angles are normal, especially for the city.

    What about Harbkovsky? The T-72 is much better than the T-64. smile So if the T-64 "Modern" is a "colosal", then the real T-72M1 "Modern" is a "super colosal".
    1. Alexander D.
      Alexander D. 17 June 2013 21: 01 New
      +1
      And who inspired you that the T-72 is better than the T-64? Dear, read less Khlopotov and Prokopenko (Military Review). In the 70s, with comparative analyzes of the T-64 with the T-72 and T-80, he showed himself not worse, but in some places better:
      http://btvt.narod.ru/istoria_t64/istoria_t64.htm
      http://btvt.narod.ru/4/t-64_t-72.htm

      So as not to think that this is a subjective opinion



      Well, to dispel all doubts, look at the modern modernization of the T-64, which has been wheeled in the troops for 7 years

      1. family tree
        family tree 17 June 2013 21: 12 New
        +3
        Quote: Alexander D.
        http://btvt.narod.ru/istoria_t64/istoria_t64.htm
        http://btvt.narod.ru/4/t-64_t-72.htm
        So as not to think that this is a subjective opinion

        This is the subjective opinion of A. Tarasenko tongue Ukrainian analogue of Khlopotov laughing
      2. Crang
        Crang 17 June 2013 21: 18 New
        -4
        Who inspired me !? Yes, I’m probably an irresponsible 12-year-old schoolboy, to whom everything is “inspired”. Alexander D - why are these video clips (which I have seen a hundred times) with an inadequate uncle (or rather, with a man who used one car, but mostly "heard" about the other). Come on yourself. With your pens, point by point - give those key positions for which the T-64, in your opinion, is better than the T-72.
        1. Alexander D.
          Alexander D. 17 June 2013 21: 32 New
          +2
          I have provided you with links - read, find out. You argue that the T-72 is better - that’s why you’ve made good arguments so as not to shake the air in vain.
          1. Crang
            Crang 17 June 2013 21: 44 New
            -1
            It’s like I’ve already brought a hundred times, and someone tried to unsuccessfully refute them. Again, not in my own words, but citing children's links such as the Andrei-BTVT site.
            Quote: Alexander D.
            You say

            And you (well, not you, but one of yours) claimed that the described tank, only on the basis of the T-64, will be of the "colossal" type, which is an unambiguous hint. So, this time you are without links, and themselves try to prove.
            1. Kars
              Kars 17 June 2013 21: 54 New
              +5
              Quote: Krang
              I’ve brought a hundred times

              By the way, this is a blatant lie, it didn’t lead anything. Only splashes of Khlopotov.
              Quote: Krang
              for which the T-64 in your opinion is better than the T-72.

              This is undeniable. Even when compared in terms of modification, the T-72 is 1.5 steps behind.
              1. Crang
                Crang 17 June 2013 22: 06 New
                -3
                Did you come?
                Quote: Kars
                By the way, this is a blatant lie, it didn’t lead anything. Only splashes of Khlopotov.

                If you didn’t notice, I basically led the discussion in my own words, and did not fill up the resource with all sorts of photos and videos of dubious quality, which then the computer starts to hang.
                1. Kars
                  Kars 17 June 2013 22: 32 New
                  +4
                  Quote: Krang
                  I basically led the discussion in my own words

                  Well, so I say that you basically lied and fantasized.
                  Quote: Krang
                  then the computer starts to hang.

                  contact a specialist
                  1. The comment was deleted.
                    1. Kars
                      Kars 17 June 2013 22: 54 New
                      +5
                      Quote: Krang
                      I told the true truth. We are stronger and our tanks are better

                      The words of the possessed fanatic and a person incapable of evaluating objective reality.
                      Quote: Krang
                      the coolest and crush enemies on the world's best tanks - welcome back to the USSR

                      We want to live peacefully, but psychos are not given to understand this.
                      1. The comment was deleted.
                      2. Kars
                        Kars 18 June 2013 08: 23 New
                        +4
                        Quote: Krang
                        But isn’t the demented fanatic on the Russian site so furiously puffing and pouring mud at Russian tanks?

                        Well, your psychiatric bell tower is better. But usually I just defend the Kharkov school of tank building. Moreover, the T-80U, which I also praise is Soviet.
                        Quote: Krang
                        I don’t understand. I think that in our world it’s possible to live peacefully only being stronger than ALL

                        This is only for loonies and convicts like that. Otherwise, you just can’t go out into the street.
                        Quote: Krang
                        to live "peacefully" by sucking the USA - so why do you need tanks at all?

                        It’s also the opinion of a sucker who receives everything in his life only by taking foreign objects orally. And I'm not talking about food and water.
                        Quote: Krang
                        Send them for scrap and that’s all. The appearance of greatness.

                        it can be sold
    2. loft79
      loft79 18 June 2013 04: 58 New
      0
      The first video has jambs. The TTX indicates a 115 mm gun. And the voice-over speaks of 125 mm. I understand that we are talking about the T-64 and T-64A, but nothing is said about it. For some reason, they dragged Christie’s pendant off topic. After such shortcomings, this video (in general, not bad) leaves a double feeling.
  17. Akim
    Akim 17 June 2013 21: 33 New
    +3
    Quote: Krang
    The T-72 is much better than the T-64.

    Started. Our song is good. Start over. No matter who will be the donor. The Slovaks upgraded their tank, Ukraine their main tank. They use it and there are no comments. SLAs are better for Slovaks and Erlikons are better than our automatic machines. But the fact is that the customer asks.
    1. Crang
      Crang 17 June 2013 21: 48 New
      -3
      Oerlikons are worse. Back in WW2, there was a saying in the navy: "If Erlikons start shooting, it's time to jump overboard." Not to be confused with Bofors. And in general in the field of small-caliber automatic weapons - we are ahead of the entire planet. There is nothing cooler than the AK-630.
      1. Akim
        Akim 17 June 2013 22: 12 New
        +4
        Quote: Krang
        Do not confuse with "Bofors".

        I do not confuse either with them, or with Rheinmetall, or even with a close relative named Hispanio-Susa. What happened in the days of our grandfathers - I don't know, but the Poles, not so long ago, had a competition between them and our 2A14. The "Swiss" won in accuracy, but they took a 23-mm twin on the ships.
  18. Old skeptic
    Old skeptic 18 June 2013 03: 01 New
    +1
    "Leave this dispute of the Slavs among themselves,
    You do not understand, it is alien to you, sowing ancient enmity. "

    A.S. Pushkin wink
  • ramsi
    ramsi 17 June 2013 20: 40 New
    +1
    if the armata succeeds, then, in my opinion, it is quite realistic to increase the angle of elevation of the gun - to self-propelled, and then such a wealth of choice ...
  • Crang
    Crang 17 June 2013 20: 47 New
    -5
    Quote: ramsi
    if the armata succeeds, then, in my opinion, it is quite realistic to increase the angle of elevation of the gun - to self-propelled, and then such a wealth of choice ...

    The T-99 will have about the same setup. Only not 20mm, but 30mm.
    1. Alexander D.
      Alexander D. 17 June 2013 21: 35 New
      +3
      Quote: Krang
      Quote: ramsi
      if the armata succeeds, then, in my opinion, it is quite realistic to increase the angle of elevation of the gun - to self-propelled, and then such a wealth of choice ...

      The T-99 will have about the same setup. Only not 20mm, but 30mm.

      How do you know - do you work in the KB UVZ or in the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation ??? Too serious statements.
      1. Genady1976
        Genady1976 17 June 2013 21: 51 New
        +1
        Friends and who will tell the T-72 to 70 tons can be heavier
        1. Kars
          Kars 17 June 2013 21: 56 New
          +5
          Quote: Genady1976
          t T-72 up to 70 tons can be weighted

          Well, let's see what UVZ will give out, while it could only up to 48 tons
        2. Alexander D.
          Alexander D. 17 June 2013 22: 01 New
          +2
          Quote: Genady1976
          Friends and who will tell the T-72 to 70 tons can be heavier

          You can, but he won’t go.
          1. Genady1976
            Genady1976 17 June 2013 22: 08 New
            +1
            Well, 60 tone will pull or it is impossible
        3. Crang
          Crang 17 June 2013 22: 08 New
          -2
          Well, then what? Only torsion bars are stiffer to insert. But what for? In the late 30s, we experienced all sorts of monsters of the KV brand of such a mass. With the engine V-2FK in 650hp and turbocharged at 850hp Not really.
          1. Genady1976
            Genady1976 17 June 2013 22: 11 New
            0
            Yes, I want armor thicker and of any garbage
            1. Crang
              Crang 17 June 2013 22: 19 New
              -4
              Quote: Akim
              Quote: Krang
              Do not confuse with "Bofors".

              I do not confuse either with them, or with Rheinmetall, or even with a close relative named Hispanio-Susa. What happened in the days of our grandfathers - I don't know, but the Poles, not so long ago, had a competition between them and our 2A14. The "Swiss" won in accuracy, but they took a 23-mm twin on the ships.

              The ships (!) Took a 23mm spark plug !!!! ??? Someone is not himself. Either you or they. Compare with the 30mm AK-630 or any domestic 23-30mm multi-barrel aviation artillery. 2A14 is from "Shilka" - a good thing. Unlike the towed ZU-23 with the same barrels, the "Shilka" has cooling, and there are 4 barrels, not 2. So this thing is watered like from a blaster.
              1. Akim
                Akim 17 June 2013 22: 41 New
                +7
                Quote: Krang
                On the ships (!) Took a 23mm spark !!!! ??? Someone is not in himself. Either you or they

                I'm sure of myself. I am healthy (in the brain - for sure). PAM-23M "Wróbel II" (Sparrow).
                Used on landing, minesweepers and missile boats.
                1. Crang
                  Crang 17 June 2013 23: 14 New
                  -4
                  Well this is Akim shit. It’s funny for me to even look at it.
                  1. Akim
                    Akim 17 June 2013 23: 39 New
                    +2
                    Quote: Krang
                    Well this is Akim shit

                    Comment at the wrong address. I do not know any Polish naval officers to ask them. If such an installation has been used for 30 years (in different versions), then it suits them. So far, there has been no talk of a replacement, although Poland is releasing a more powerful 25mm Oerlikon KVA. and got free 20 mm Oerlikons KAD L70 (and several pieces of L85).
                    1. Crang
                      Crang 17 June 2013 23: 57 New
                      -1
                      "Such" installation was used 70 years ago ... So there is nothing to be proud of.
                      1. Akim
                        Akim 18 June 2013 00: 14 New
                        +2
                        Quote: Krang
                        So there is nothing to be proud of.

                        I don't think they are proud. In general, what do people have for the habit of putting "their own" in front. We're not on Discovery or Ren TV. We must objectively perceive competitors. Moreover, there is no need to put a dominant. I just informed. I have no ambition for them. You have to know and that's all. And to give an assessment "without holding it in hand" in my opinion is wrong.
            2. Alexander D.
              Alexander D. 17 June 2013 22: 20 New
              +2
              Quote: Genady1976
              Yes, I want armor thicker and of any garbage

              To strengthen the armor, it is necessary to move along the path of new solutions in the field of remote sensing and to actively develop the KAZ, which will protect not only from missiles, but also from shells. The most promising direction is KAZ, and strengthening passive armor is a dead end branch of development.
              1. Vereshagin
                Vereshagin 17 June 2013 22: 51 New
                +4
                Still, it is better to solve the problem “comprehensively”, otherwise you can be left without super-tricky KAZ pants with bare bulletproof armor.
                1. Alexander D.
                  Alexander D. 18 June 2013 00: 45 New
                  +1
                  Quote: Vereshagin
                  Still, it is better to solve the problem “comprehensively”, otherwise you can be left without super-tricky KAZ pants with bare bulletproof armor.

                  I do not claim that having put only the advanced KAZ on the T-64B, it will become a super-tank !!! It’s just that in Ukraine and the Russian Federation, in contrast to Western countries, they took a more rational path - they did not increase their combined armor (and thereby destroy the tank’s chassis), but they used more advanced DZ models (Knife, Doublet, Relic) and used more active defense complexes ( IR floodlights, smoke grenades, Barrier, Arena).
  • Vereshagin
    Vereshagin 17 June 2013 22: 45 New
    +1
    Quote: Alexander D.
    I have provided you with links - read, find out. You argue that the T-72 is better - that’s why you’ve made good arguments so as not to shake the air in vain.

    And can you, without reference, and so to speak, from personal experience "highlight" the advantages of the T-64 over the T-72?
    1. Kars
      Kars 17 June 2013 22: 57 New
      +6
      Quote: Vereshagin
      from personal experience "highlight" the advantages of the T-64 over the T-72?

      For example, combined armor and KUV, but the battle will begin that they are also on the T-72. But they appeared later, when the T-64 was afraid of new modifications. The T-72 is a simplified mobilization tank.
      1. Crang
        Crang 17 June 2013 23: 13 New
        -5
        The T-72 combined armor has been since his birth.
        1. Alexander D.
          Alexander D. 17 June 2013 23: 54 New
          +1
          Quote: Krang
          The T-72 combined armor has been since his birth.

          T-72 Ural
          Booking VLD T-72 "Ural" was similar to booking T-64. In the first series of the tank, towers directly converted from T-64 towers were used. Subsequently, a monolithic tower made of cast armor steel was used, with a dimension of 400-410 mm.
          Monolithic towers provided satisfactory resistance against 100-105 mm armor-piercing sub-caliber shells (BPS), but the anti-cumulative resistance of these towers in protecting against shells of the same caliber was inferior to towers with combined filler.
          1. Crang
            Crang 17 June 2013 23: 59 New
            -1
            Excellent - you talked great about towers. Exactly from the site of Andrew. At the same time, forgetting to say that the T-72 monolithic towers were superior to the T-64A towers in terms of resistance from BOPS.
            Well, what about the case? Did "Solidarity" not allow it? The frontal part of even the basic T-72 was combined.
      2. Crang
        Crang 17 June 2013 23: 16 New
        -3
        What is the T-72 "simplified"? How is it worse? What are the parameters?
  • Vereshagin
    Vereshagin 17 June 2013 22: 56 New
    +1
    By the way, not one of the mass produced tanks known to me is intended for combat in the city alone, only as part of assault groups!
    For battle in the city, the tank does not need a long-barreled gun with a long firing range, but the elevation angle should be "howitzer". The optimal solution is a gun of something like 2A80 with a full range of ammunition and a rate of fire up to 20 rounds per minute. The engine is a gas turbine, air intake from under the turret (should be closed from bottles with AP). Hydraulic transmission with full reverse. MTO front location. Reservation and dynamic protection should take into account the possibility of destruction by cumulative grenades from above. The installation of a heavy machine gun in an autonomous armored module, controlled by the commander of the machine, is desirable. Necessarily - smoke grenades and an airborne squad in the stern of 6 shooters. Everything else: sights, surveillance devices, weapon stabilizer, fire extinguishing means, communications, etc. - "taste".
    The closest to the "phantom" I painted is the Israeli Merkava.
    1. Argon
      Argon 17 June 2013 23: 23 New
      +2
      Yes, we have already met such people (read), with such ideas (tank building \ bp tank units) you are not here! - at least to a therapist.
      1. Vereshagin
        Vereshagin 17 June 2013 23: 42 New
        +1
        Do you consider it possible for me to be rude?
    2. Genady1976
      Genady1976 17 June 2013 23: 28 New
      +2
      Why reinvent the markov with just once and all
      1. Crang
        Crang 17 June 2013 23: 30 New
        -4
        What the fuck is she needed? This is not a tank.
        1. Vereshagin
          Vereshagin 17 June 2013 23: 44 New
          +2
          Let me disagree with you! I believe that for the battle in the city as part of the assault group - this is what we need ...
          1. Crang
            Crang 18 June 2013 00: 02 New
            -3
            Let me, in turn, disagree with you. "Carrot" doesn't even have a remote control. A bochina 80mm + screen (from 20mm to 80mm according to some sources). Plus the feed, where there are shells behind the thin armor to the left and right of the hatch. Plus the same shells in the turret aft niche. Burn - I don't want to.
  • Vereshagin
    Vereshagin 17 June 2013 23: 08 New
    +1
    Quote: Kars
    Quote: Vereshagin
    from personal experience "highlight" the advantages of the T-64 over the T-72?

    For example, combined armor and KUV, but the battle will begin that they are also on the T-72. But they appeared later, when the T-64 was afraid of new modifications. The T-72 is a simplified mobilization tank.

    The words “simplified mobilization tank” are words! Specify specifically the worse?
    1. Alexander D.
      Alexander D. 17 June 2013 23: 38 New
      0
      Quote: Vereshagin
      Quote: Kars
      Quote: Vereshagin
      from personal experience "highlight" the advantages of the T-64 over the T-72?

      For example, combined armor and KUV, but the battle will begin that they are also on the T-72. But they appeared later, when the T-64 was afraid of new modifications. The T-72 is a simplified mobilization tank.

      The words “simplified mobilization tank” are words! Specify specifically the worse?

      I will not even go far into the jungle and prove something - you, apparently, are from the same opera as krang, khan and avenger711 ... Read and understand what it is worse:
      http://izvestia.ru/news/545300
      1. Vereshagin
        Vereshagin 17 June 2013 23: 47 New
        +3
        You are discussing as a "paper theorist" without giving any examples from personal experience. It seems to me that this does not give you the right to judge so categorically.
    2. Kars
      Kars 18 June 2013 08: 28 New
      +2
      Quote: Vereshagin
      The words “simplified mobilization tank” are words! Specify specifically the worse?

      All the answers are here.
  • Vereshagin
    Vereshagin 17 June 2013 23: 50 New
    +3
    In my experience with the T-64, the more “stiffer” GN stabilization due to the use of GBM, in contrast to the electric drive on the T-72. MZ 64s I like more than AZ 72s. Yes, there are a lot of adjustments in the Ministry of Health, but in the process of operation, rarely did anyone carry them out, although it was necessary to control them with all license plates. Some people think that loading in AZ is more convenient than in MZ. Well, I won’t tell you! It all depends on experience. And 28 shots, IMHO, are better than 22 !!! The 64-ke chassis is worse than the 72-ke in terms of operational reliability, but softer. The 5TDF engine has a lower overhaul life than B84 and a higher oil consumption (IMHO, and slightly higher operational fuel consumption) starts worse even at positive temperatures. Replacing a 64-bit engine is simpler and less time consuming. ZPU “Utyos” of the closed type is better because of the sight and electric drives, and everything else is approximately parity. For tank crews in battle, there is not much difference ...
    1. Crang
      Crang 18 June 2013 00: 08 New
      -3
      Having said about the advantages of the T-64, you did not mention its shortcomings. These shortcomings - they are not operational in nature, but purely combat. And for purely operational:
      - And the stench in BO?
      - and gusli incontinence?
      - And chronic incontinence of engine settings?
      - And a trap for a mechanical driver?
      - And a good lateral projection of the MOH to turn tankers into astronauts?
      - And this is the same fire hazard GBM?
      1. Akim
        Akim 18 June 2013 00: 29 New
        +3
        Quote: Krang
        - And a good lateral projection of the MOH to turn tankers into astronauts?

        Eighties was used in Chechnya. She was less vulnerable to the side (and especially at the bottom) than the T-72B (BA). Or isn’t it?
        Quote: Krang
        - And a trap for a mechanical driver?

        Tilting two trays, or pulling out three shells (in order to get the wounded) is worthless (it takes about half a minute).
        Quote: Krang
        - And this is the same fire hazard GBM?

        2 liters of weather oil do not. This is all nonsense.
        In general, flaws can be found everywhere. Who cares who is worse or better? Or is it important for you?
        1. Crang
          Crang 18 June 2013 07: 41 New
          -2
          Quote: Akim
          Eighties was used in Chechnya. She was less vulnerable to the side (and especially at the bottom) than the T-72B (BA). Or isn’t it?

          No not like this. Why should the T-80 be less vulnerable? You think with your head. What does the T-80 have there that it is less vulnerable? Standing charges upright? There, on the contrary, it is very vulnerable. Lack of remote sensing in the place where the T-72B has it? So it is also vulnerable.
          Quote: Akim
          Tilting two trays, or pulling out three shells (in order to get the wounded) is worthless (it takes about half a minute).

          Here with such nonsense I also have to face in such disputes. A man in a fire loses consciousness in 10-15 seconds. How to fold two trays and pull out three shells in such a situation? There the score goes for seconds.
          1. Akim
            Akim 18 June 2013 09: 02 New
            +1
            Quote: Krang
            What does the T-80 have there that it is less vulnerable? Standing charges upright? There, on the contrary, it is very vulnerable. Lack of remote sensing in the place where the T-72B has it?

            I did not see the T-80BV in the troops. I will say about the vulnerability of the T-64BV. They really need on-board dynamic protection - and there it is. As for the vertical or horizontal arrangement of charges ... Yes, it doesn’t matter when the cumulative jet breaks through the armor. If it is a core from BOPS, then it will not ignite them. These are all the tales of Arina's grandmother. The first Chechen one was already marching and our teachers already had the first conclusions on the use of armored vehicles. T-80BV was the best, but very expensive to operate. In the second, the Chechens did not have tanks. There was enough T-72B.

            Quote: Krang
            A man in a fire loses consciousness in 10-15 seconds.

            I do not argue, but simply explain. If you think that when a shell hits and a fire hits the engine or driver's seat, a person can slip with the speed of an athlete and cold nerves over the AZ, then you are deeply mistaken. They die the same way that it will be AZ, that MoH. This is not for when the tank is already on fire.
  • Vereshagin
    Vereshagin 18 June 2013 00: 03 New
    +2
    Quote: Alexander D.

    I will not even go far into the jungle and prove something - you, apparently, are from the same opera as krang, khan and avenger711 ... Read and understand what it is worse:
    http://izvestia.ru/news/545300

    I will tell you a harsh military secret: I'm not from the opera, I'm from the tank troops. And you?
    1. The comment was deleted.
  • a.hamster55
    a.hamster55 18 June 2013 08: 34 New
    0
    Dear Vereshagin! I'm not in boom in boom boom, tell me please. Does it make sense to saturate
    tank with so many different caliber weapons. And how does the crew cope with them in real life-battle? For some reason, it seems to me that this is due to the poverty of the budget, and it would be more correct - a tank with large-caliber weapons and next to it, something like a "terminator"
    1. Vereshagin
      Vereshagin 18 June 2013 22: 33 New
      +3
      I think it doesn’t. The armament that is already used is enough: a tank cannon-launcher, a coaxial machine gun and an anti-aircraft machine gun in an autonomous protected module controlled by the tank commander. And, here, aiming and observation devices must be installed with a video channel and with protection of matrices from burning out by laser radiation.
      The machine commander must have a stabilized panoramic sight with the image displayed on the display, an “electronic map” of the tactical situation, the information on which is updated via a “closed” radio channel, an on-board computer for monitoring tank systems with output to the display and a voice informant of critical parameters. The image from the optical and thermal imaging branches of the gunner’s sight should also be displayed. The whole process of preparing a shot should be carried out by automation, and the commander and gunner should only tell her what goals, in what sequence, from which weapon to hit and with what ammunition consumption, and also to command “pli !!!”
      I see a similar picture with the driver: the same display with the image output in front of the tank and / or behind the tank; indication of the parameters of the power plant controlled by a computer; convenient control mechanisms. Naturally, duplicate optical aiming and surveillance devices are also necessary.
      All non-mechanized warhead must be moved outside the chapels of the fighting compartment and the control compartment. No tank shelving! To increase the fuel generated from the tanks to increase fire safety, for example, with nitrogen released from the engine exhaust.
      All modern tanks are “imprisoned” to a greater extent for duels among themselves than for that role - the destruction of enemy firing points in the breakthrough defense zone to ensure the rapid advance of infantry units and the capture of enemy territory for which they were invented.
      It is safer to fire on enemy tanks with indirect or semi-direct aiming from an unmanned reconnaissance reconnaissance ammunition with a tandem warhead, and "destroy" anti-tank artillery using regiment and division artillery units and units even before approaching.
  • Vereshagin
    Vereshagin 18 June 2013 22: 30 New
    +1
    Quote: Krang
    Having said about the advantages of the T-64, you did not mention its shortcomings. These shortcomings - they are not operational in nature, but purely combat. And for purely operational:
    - And the stench in BO?
    - and gusli incontinence?
    - And chronic incontinence of engine settings?
    - And a trap for a mechanical driver?
    - And a good lateral projection of the MOH to turn tankers into astronauts?
    - And this is the same fire hazard GBM?

    I don’t agree! In BO, if, of course, you do not spoil it, it smells of pyroxylin. The smell of MGE is felt only during the strait. And in general, there are no allergy sufferers in the tank troops. I didn’t meet your “gusli incontinence” in the service, I don’t know what kind of tool it is. There were button accordions in the lennoms, guitars, balalaikas, no gusli!
    I also did not see “Chronic Incontinence of Engine Settings” in 5TDF, although I have sufficient operating experience. I’ve never regulated it myself, and I don’t know that someone during military repairs made adjustments on the five (by the way, on the six). Here on the V84A, the “wrong” fuel injection pump changed and set the feed angle - that was. About the "trap" Akim replied, that's right. Between the trays, the upper rim of the conveyor has a stopper - can be removed with one hand, and in the clips of the rack with the battery, the lever for resetting the trays. If the tray is empty or if “really needed”, it is possible without a lever.
    As for the side projections - 72 looks preferable because of the large track rollers.
    GBM (hydraulic motor of a large moment of horizontal guidance drive) is also fire hazardous, as is a hydraulic vertical guidance drive. In order for him to catch fire on him, you need to “star”, for example, with BOPS, but I’m afraid that after this some crew members will be deeply “violet” fire hazard or not ...