Military Review

Upgraded tank T-72B3

37
During recent tank biathlon competitions at the Alabino training ground, the focus was on the original sport. However, there were other events in the program of the event. So, at one of the sites of the training ground, a demonstration of Russian armored vehicles operating in the troops at present took place. Among other exhibits at this small exhibition was a new modification tank T-72, bearing the name T-72B3. It should be noted that the combat vehicle of this model was first introduced to the general public. Prior to this, people interested in armored vehicles, but not directly related to the armed forces or industry, had to be content with only general information and a set of photographs.




According to eyewitnesses, the new T-72B3 tank did not cause much excitement among the guests of the event. T-90A, who was standing nearby, attracted much more attention. In addition, probably not all those present at the show were able to determine the model of the tank according to its appearance. Since the T-72B3 is a relatively simple upgrade of the T-72B tank created in the late eighties, the appearance of these armored vehicles differs in only a few minor details. Nevertheless, such “trifles” can have a noticeable impact on the characteristics and capabilities of the combat vehicle.

The T-72B3 project was created as a way of budget modernization of the existing fleet of T-72B tanks and therefore has a number of characteristic features. The cost of upgrading one old tank to the state of T-72B3, according to reports, does not exceed 52 million rubles. At the same time, most of the finance (about 30 million) is spent on the overhaul of the combat vehicle, and the remaining funds go to the purchase and installation of new equipment.

During the overhaul and modernization, the serial tank model T-72B, when re-equipped in T-72B3, receives a number of new devices. First of all, it is necessary to note the new multi-channel gunner Sosna-U. This device allows the gunner to find targets using optical and thermal channels. In addition, the Sosna-U is equipped with a laser rangefinder and anti-tank missile control system. Thus, using only one device, the gunner can perform several functions required in combat. Unfortunately, during the creation of the T-72B3 project, the tank builders used an ambiguous or even controversial technical solution. External units of the Sosna-U sight are placed inside a light-armored casing protecting them from bullets and fragments. In the stowed position, the front window of the housing is closed with a lid. The latter is attached to the casing with bolts. Because of this, before shooting, the crew must leave the car and manually remove the sight cover. The covers of the casing of sight on domestic tanks are usually equipped with devices that allow you to open them with crew jobs. For whatever reason, the project T-72B3 used such an original, but strange solution is unknown.



As for the gunner's sight, the 1А40-1, which was used on the base model T-72B, it remained in its place on the new armored vehicle, but now serves as an additional tool targeting tool. The workplace of the tank commander is equipped with a TKN-3MK device with the “Double” system. Through the use of these tools, the commander also gets the opportunity to direct a gun and fire.

The driving performance of the T-72B3 remained at the same level as that of the T-72B. The fact is that in order to reduce the cost of modernization, it was decided to leave the power plant without any changes. During the repair and conversion of the T-72B3, the B-84-1 diesel engine retains horsepower 840. At the same time, the suspension and the tracks were subject to some changes. The latter now have a parallel hinge, which is expected to improve performance and increase resource.

The specific nature of the modernization of the T-72B tanks to the “B3” level, implying large expenditures on the overhaul of equipment, affected the level of protection. So, on the body of the updated tanks there is still a built-in dynamic protection of the “Contact-5” type. According to some data, T-72B3 could get a new protection "Relic", but later it was decided to leave the system used earlier.

However, the overall level of protection of the T-72B3 tank increased slightly compared with the same parameters of the base machine. Previously, an active-passive night sight was used on T-72B tanks, using the L-4A “Luna” infrared searchlight in some modes of operation. The T-72B3 spotlight is missing due to the use of a new sight with a night channel. The space to the right of the gun mask, which was previously occupied by the searchlight, is closed on the new tank by the dynamic protection module. This made it possible to solve the long-standing problem of full protection of the frontal projection of the tank turret. However, the use of the old dynamic Contact-5 protection raises questions about the overall level of protection.



The armament complex of the T-72B3 tank has undergone minimal changes. The gun launcher 2А46-5 received an updated automatic loader, modified for the use of new ammunition. The gun itself, as far as is known, has remained the same. Also, the anti-aircraft machine gun was not modified. The updated tank, like the previous models, is equipped with an open turret with a NSV machine gun. According to some reports, a remote-controlled machine-gun installation, with which the crew could fire without leaving the fighting compartment, became a “victim” of the cost reduction of modernization.

As a result of the conversion of the T-72B tanks to the T-72B3, their combat potential increases, but the difference in the capabilities of the basic and modified machines can be a cause for serious disputes. Overhaul and installation of new equipment can affect the state of technology and tank forces in general. On the other hand, the use of not the newest and most sophisticated devices in combination with a number of ambiguous solutions (sight window cover or open machine gun turret) in some situations can completely neutralize all the existing advantages. Nevertheless, the selected devices and ideas fit into the customer-defined estimates. Thus, T-72B3 is in fact a compromise between price and capabilities, adjusted for the state of the tank forces and the imminent appearance of new technology.



















On the materials of the sites:
http://vestnik-rm.ru/
http://russianarms.mybb.ru/
http://armor.kiev.ua/
http://otvaga2004.ru/
Author:
Photos used:
http://vitalykuzmin.net, http://otvaga2004.ru
37 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Professor
    Professor 27 August 2013 08: 06
    17
    The cost of upgrading one old tank to the T-72B3 state, according to reports, does not exceed 52 million rubles. At the same time, most of the finances (about 30 million) are spent on overhaul of the combat vehicle, and the remaining funds are spent on the purchase and installation of new equipment.

    I understood correctly, they paid 52 million rubles for all this, i.e. $ 1.5? However, a little expensive. request
    1. Esso
      Esso 27 August 2013 08: 37
      25
      The equipment is old, it’s expensive to repair, it’s more profitable to buy new tanks, but the Ministry of Defense hopes for Armata, but it was worth investing in tanks in the current t-72s, namely, instead of pin-5, put a relic and add a cloak complex. the tank’s dynamic protection and cape can be removed and put on other armored vehicles, it’s also necessary not to save on people, but to make a remote anti-aircraft gun and covers for opening sights. In our country, after the tips, there are many T-72s that they don’t know what to do with them! We need to save money not on people, but on Mr. Serdyukov and his company, to hang him on the Red Square to show all corrupt officials what happens, we have not 37 years, but a pity, but we must not plant people, but real thieves and wreckers ( businessmen)!
      In the process, all T-72s will be written off from storage depots and in parts until 2020, the question of current is whether our manufacturers will be able to establish the production of reinforcement!
      1. Civil
        Civil 27 August 2013 09: 40
        +5
        Nightingale and woodpecker on a nightingale, if only so
        1. beech
          beech 27 August 2013 23: 54
          +1
          I’m certainly not special, but in my opinion it would be more rational to buy T90s that will last 20 years for expensive than repair cheaply for already twenty years old equipment, which in 5 years will need to be repaired again ...
      2. loft79
        loft79 27 August 2013 17: 24
        +4
        Quote: Esso
        You need to save not on people, but on Mr. Serdyukov and his company

        Precisely said Serdyuk is not a man, but a geek. good
        1. Blackgrifon
          Blackgrifon 27 August 2013 20: 00
          +4
          Quote: loft79
          You need to save money not on people, but on Mr. Serdyukov and his company, to hang him on the Red Square, to show all the corrupt officials what happens, we are not 37 years old, but it's a pity, but we don’t have to plant people


          Yeah - that's just Serdyukov in the wild, and his sponsored under house arrest in a 13-room apartment.
      3. uwzek
        uwzek 27 August 2013 17: 38
        10
        There are really a lot of T-72 tanks, much worse is that they are different in hull design (about five varieties). From the economic point of view, it is pointless to bring these tanks to the T-90 level - the nose and part of the bottom will remain from the original body, the rest will go to scrap. The B-72 engines were installed on the T-92, this revision is not so expensive, but for some reason the customer refused this with the latest mass modernization (possibly increasing engine power did not affect the dynamics of the machine very much - the T-72 is heavier than the T-90 , refers to the armored hull). But together with the new engine on the T-90 there is also a much more powerful power plant - therefore, it is quite possible that many systems available on the T-72 cannot be installed on the T-90, there will not be enough prosaic current.
        Now about "Relics" ... By itself, this module is very time consuming, in metal they are well executed if there are several dozen for the entire time of their existence. The interchangeability of such structures is very controversial, that is, it is unlikely that it will be possible to simply screw the Relikt module from one car to another. The absolute dignity of relics is in their stability. Contact in combat conditions (it is clear that not by the crew) is to be repaired faster, but after such repairs it will work as a remote control, no one will tell you, you need a cunning layout of seams and other technological secrets. And to install the "Relic" you will need to brush off a few bonks from the nose of the car and install similar ones using the new module. And dynamic protection will probably recover. All other advantages of the relic over the contact are pure flood. By the way, no one bothered to make the built-in T-90 DZ according to the design of the relics, the level of protection would be the same, and the price would be at the level of contacts. Apparently for these reasons, the Relikt missile defense system was never accepted, these modules are available only on "terminators", which are not in our army. On "armatures" dynamic protection is very different ...
        1. Blackgrifon
          Blackgrifon 27 August 2013 20: 02
          +1
          Quote: uwzek
          There are really a lot of T-72 tanks, much worse is that they are different in hull design (about five varieties). From the economic point of view, it is pointless to bring these tanks to the T-90 level - the nose and part of the bottom will remain from the original body, the rest will go to scrap.


          But, uwzek, the T-72 is the most common BM. How much and when will "Armat" arrive - a couple of thousand? All the same, the T-72 will remain the basis of the tank fleet and they need to be modernized.
      4. beech
        beech 27 August 2013 23: 52
        0
        they said that they’ll buy 2,5kosar .. but here you need to make an allowance for childhood diseases, crises, other minor problems and kickbacks, so if you buy 1,5-2 thousand, you can already be happy
    2. washi
      washi 27 August 2013 12: 59
      0
       professor (1)  Today, 08:06 New

      The cost of upgrading one old tank to the T-72B3 state, according to reports, does not exceed 52 million rubles. At the same time, most of the finances (about 30 million) are spent on overhaul of the combat vehicle, and the remaining funds are spent on the purchase and installation of new equipment.
      I understood correctly, they paid 52 million rubles for all this, i.e. $ 1.5? However a little expensive

      I agree. Overhaul: replacement of hodovka, engine, guns, protection and updating of electronics, painting. There are few updates for the remaining 22 million.
    3. Alekseev
      Alekseev 27 August 2013 14: 28
      0
      That's right, a little expensive!
      Most likely, this modernization is a temporary measure aimed at preserving production.
      It provides the necessary minimum combat qualities.
    4. Blackgrifon
      Blackgrifon 27 August 2013 19: 59
      0
      Quote: Professor
      I understood correctly, they paid 52 million rubles for all this, i.e. $ 1.5? However, a little expensive.


      So after all, cars are transferred to the plant according to the principle - "which is worse", and these are far from the best BM. It's even worse with equipment that comes from storage bases.
    5. Geisenberg
      Geisenberg 28 August 2013 00: 31
      0
      Quote: Professor
      I understood correctly, they paid 52 million rubles for all this, i.e. $ 1.5? However, a little expensive. request


      The ruble is falling laughing so less ... just do with the initial price of the product is not very expensive kapitalka ...
  2. La hire
    La hire 27 August 2013 08: 39
    +2
    the combat vehicle of this model was first introduced to the general public

    Really?
    1. recrut6666
      recrut6666 27 August 2013 16: 15
      -1
      Glonas GPS ?????? But glonas then it works, since the GPS set ????
  3. Aleks tv
    Aleks tv 27 August 2013 08: 41
    +2
    It seems like recently this car was discussed.
    Arranged on shelves.
    Again? or again?

    Opinion in a few days has not changed. Wishes are the same.
  4. Terrible ensign
    Terrible ensign 27 August 2013 08: 52
    +3
    Thanks for the stuff ...
    As far as I understand, budget restyling for those who once scored such cars ...
    For our armed forces, I think, it is hardly necessary. You need to look forward, and not stagnate.
    1. avdkrd
      avdkrd 27 August 2013 11: 11
      13
      such "modernization" for their own armed forces is an open undermining of the defense capability. The gunner's sight cover on bolts is generally beyond good and evil. How could a customer approve such a super-tech system? The answer is the customer himself imposed this nonsense on the manufacturer. Conclusion - everything is as always, the army (responsible for ordering and accepting equipment) is interested not in the fighting qualities of equipment, but in the development of funds.
      it’s the same as when building a house, the supporting frame should be made 5cm less, because there is not enough money to meet the budget. It seems that the house also looks the same and there is a monolithic frame, but with the first snowfall it develops like a card.
      From this modernization, the feeling of irrationality is to spend 50 million on repairs and at the same time not put new developments from t90AM or do it without outright idiocy. The decision on the sight generally deprives the tank of this sight, since in combat conditions the lid must either be removed in advance (which does not extend its life at all), or without a sight in battle. No one will warn of fire contact ahead of time. Old DZ from the same opera. It would be better if they didn’t put it at all and systematically equipped it with a new one.
      1. Black Colonel
        Black Colonel 27 August 2013 13: 03
        +3
        "The bolt-on gunner's sight cover is generally beyond good and evil."
        And if the bolt is also locked with a lock nut, then it can finally be tin!
  5. solomon
    solomon 27 August 2013 09: 56
    0
    The external units of the Sosna-U sight are located inside the lightly armored casing protecting them from bullets and fragments. In the stowed position, the front window of the casing is closed by a lid. The latter is attached to the casing with bolts.

    The crew will have to have spare bolts with them.
    And to be more serious, it seems that the car was customized for the price, and the real increase in combat capabilities was considered secondary.
    1. datur
      datur 27 August 2013 11: 18
      +1
      But to be more serious, it seems that the car was customized for the price, and the real increase in combat capabilities was considered secondary. - That's right, because this modernization was ordered back when Serdyukov !!!
  6. Marconi41
    Marconi41 27 August 2013 10: 32
    +1
    Yeah ... New is well forgotten old ?! Apparently someone confused the tankers with taxi drivers ...
  7. The Indian Joe
    The Indian Joe 27 August 2013 10: 46
    +3
    Without KAZ, any tank, whether the T-72, the Abrams, or the Merkava, is just a good target for an ATGM.
  8. ed1968
    ed1968 27 August 2013 11: 52
    0
    again this slag modification No.
  9. Diviz
    Diviz 27 August 2013 13: 37
    0
    Who won the biathlon?
    1. koosss
      koosss 27 August 2013 13: 59
      +4
      ..............our
  10. sergey72
    sergey72 27 August 2013 14: 13
    +6
    And why is it not installed dynamic protection in place of the "Moon"? And in general, the defense of the tower is somehow leaky. What was the money spent on?
    1. Wynd
      Wynd 22 September 2014 05: 58
      0
      I am also struck by the installation of DZ on the tower, sides and top of the VLD. Russian maybe, you cannot say otherwise - the splayed blocks of DZ on the tower. Well, really it was impossible to compose more competently? (In the photo, the RPG falls into the unprotected gap between the DZ and the tower shoulder strap)
  11. klirens
    klirens 27 August 2013 15: 40
    +1
    Between the "Luna" and the cannon, the PKT barrel still sticks out. So don't put DZ there. But from the side of the gunner - it was necessary to set.
    1. Aleks tv
      Aleks tv 27 August 2013 16: 50
      +2
      Quote: klirens
      Between the "Luna" and the cannon, the PKT barrel still sticks out. So don't put DZ there.

      FCT is not so far located from the regular trunk.
      Yes, it has its own embrasure, but it is literally "pressed" against the swinging parts of the gun.
      Protection there asks itself after the dismantling of the moon.

      Quote: klirens
      But from the side of the gunner - it was necessary to put.

      For a long time I figured out which side ...
      The fact is that on the T-72 in a non-combat position (with the stabilizer turned off and the boom mounted), the turret is ALWAYS turned 32-0 (to the right track) so that the respected mechanic could climb out of his "heroic" place. On the T-64 and T-80 differently.
      Those. and to put it is impossible and to leave it as it is is impossible.
      In earlier versions, this issue was better balanced in resolving this issue.

      Additional protection is depressing in principle, as are the features of modernization except the Pine itself.
      Sergei, not so long ago we discussed this, if you are interested, look at the topic: "T-72B3 was declassified at the tank biathlon in Alabino."
      You are "seventy-two", like me, if my memory does not fail me.
  12. The comment was deleted.
  13. sergey158-29
    sergey158-29 27 August 2013 20: 31
    -2
    Let's analyze: from 52 lemons = 30 overhaul + 22 modernization.

    Get the upgrade:
    - A NEW MULTI-CHANNEL SIGHT OF THE HUNTER “Sosna-U” - in the stowed position the front window of the casing is closed by a cover with bolts
    - 2A46-5 launcher-gun received UPDATED AZ
    - something else, somewhere ...

    And all this for some ridiculous $ 666!
  14. Crang
    Crang 27 August 2013 21: 59
    +2
    The author is trying to tell the public something about which he himself has a very vague idea. Well, all in order:

    Cannon launcher 2A46-5 received an updated automatic loader, modified to use new ammunition. The gun itself, as far as is known, has remained the same.

    The author is absurd. New ammunition for which a modified AZ is needed, that is, "Lead-2" can only be used by the new 125mm guns 2A46M4 (on the T-80U) and 2A46M5 (on the T-90 series). The "old" 2A46M, which was on the base T-72B, will simply burst when trying to fire such an ammunition. Installing a new AZ and preserving the old weapon is a completely meaningless undertaking. So the T-72B3 is equipped with a new 125mm 2A46M5 cannon and a new AZ, which allows it to use new shells that are as powerful as the best western arrows.

    As for the gunner’s sight 1A40-1, which was used on the basic T-72B model, it remained in its place on the new armored car, but now it functions as an additional means of guiding the gun.

    Another position showing that the author "floats" in some issues of this topic. The daytime laser sight-rangefinder of the T-72B tank gunner is called TPD-K-1. 1A40-1 is the name of the entire complex of the FCS T-72B. The T-72B3 uses a significantly improved MSA 1A40-1M with a digital ballistic computer on microprocessors and a built-in automatic target tracking. Which includes the Sosna-U combined sight.

    The fact is that in order to reduce the cost of modernization, it was decided to leave the power plant without any changes. During repairs and refurbishment, the T-72B3 retains the 84 horsepower V-1-840 diesel engine.

    This information should be treated with a certain degree of irony. It is not excluded that this is nothing more than "disinformation" of our brothers like Kars and his friends. The difference between B-84-1 and B-92S2 is not very big. So, most likely, the T-72B3 tanks that needed the "capital" of the engine still received a new 1000-horsepower engine, and the old 840-horsepower remained on those tanks whose engines did not require major repairs.
    1. Kars
      Kars 27 August 2013 22: 08
      +1
      Quote: Krang
      then this is nothing more than "disinformation" of our brothers like Kars

      Quote: Krang
      So most likely the T-72B3 tanks that needed the "capital" of the engine still received a new 1000-horsepower engine,

      Well, of course, do you have confirmations? As well as the availability of new ammunition of increased power in warehouses)))

      http://vestnik-rm.ru/
      http://russianarms.mybb.ru/
      http://armor.kiev.ua/
      http://otvaga2004.ru/

      By the way, I’m not in the sources))
  15. Shtyn dwarf
    Shtyn dwarf 27 August 2013 22: 06
    +2
    I apologize if not quite the topic. Here came the idea of ​​SU for combat in urban environments.
    The armament of the SU is a 250mm gun and a 30mm gun (for example 2A42). Another periscope and video cameras for maneuvering in reverse. Criticize.
  16. Mechanismoid
    Mechanismoid 27 August 2013 22: 27
    +1
    the model is similar to kv2 with a 152mm gun))) and the periscope and video camera will first "fly" at the first OK)) IMHO
  17. Shtyn dwarf
    Shtyn dwarf 27 August 2013 23: 27
    0
    Quote: Mechanoid
    the model is similar to kv2 with a 152mm gun))) and the periscope and video camera will first "fly" at the first OK)) IMHO
    Here the tower does not spin - this is SU. Horizontal guidance by tracks. An article came out here about video cameras, which said that on the contrary, video cameras are more promising than periscopes because of the small "pupil" into which it is more difficult to get into. So video cameras are the squeak of tank fashion =) And what is "OK"?
    I repeat that the SU is imprisoned for battle in the city, hiding in urban facilities against terrorists.
    Inspired by watching videos from "annanews"
  18. bublic82009
    bublic82009 28 August 2013 22: 03
    0
    the cost of upgrading the T-72 tank somehow. or maybe kickbacks are still included there
  19. mkmi
    mkmi 21 February 2015 23: 17
    0
    Dear specialists, please give an opinion on the modification of the tank in the picture.
  20. Alexey-74
    Alexey-74 April 9 2015 11: 15
    0
    It would be better if more T-90s began to be produced, in the coming years, before entering the Armata troops, I would like to see the T-90 as the main battle tank (MBT), but as always, everything depends on funding. The T-72 tank and all its upgrades are not bad, but its time is gone ... soldier
  21. Wolka
    Wolka 10 December 2015 13: 11
    0
    fishless fish, but still somehow not encouraging ...