Military Review

T-72B3 ... or maybe we need another "beast"?

92
On the Military Review electronic pages, a debate about the advantages of various tanks "Soviet school", and each side gives different arguments. And as a result, one of my comrades asked me to speak up. I will quote his request verbatim:
“It has always been curious what kind of crap are" 1-X42 "and" 1-X45 "? Maybe somehow share? Interested in the opinion of practice. I was always interested in practical work using sighting and observation complexes T-80 ”.


T-72B3 ... or maybe we need another "beast"?

...

I want to immediately apologize to Aleks TV for unconsciously misleading him, the second “hrendelpupina” is called 1Г46 ..., and 1Г45 belongs to CoC (Cobra). Well, it's "annoying little things." And I also want to thank and congratulate him on very interesting articles about the modernized T72B3 tank. But back to the topic.

I was very lucky, I entered the Kharkov Guards Tank School at the time when our army was preparing for rearmament. And the command, knowing that the days of the T64 on the conveyor were “numbered” and soon the new “single” tank would go to the troops, decided to prepare us, the future tank “Kraskoms”, as specialists of the “wide profile”. On each course we studied schools and practically mastered various types of tanks, leaving the “profile” machine Т64. And as a result, during our studies, we were given the opportunity to practically shoot with a regular projectile from T64B, T72, T80B and T80UD and an “insert” from T62 ... And honestly, I am very grateful to the teaching staff of the Kharkov Guards Higher Tank Command Order of the Red Star of the school of the school of the school for the schoolchildren of the schoolchildren. their work, they taught us "not for fear, but for conscience," since the professionals themselves were excellent. But the department of fire training stood out even against this high general background. Well, where else could the teachers themselves make out the new artillery blaster to draw a general device for us cadets or to “arrange” at the repair plant to make a split effective model of a recoil brake or roll in a tank gun? And Colonel Boyko? With his "Twins", which he gave a shout to the shooting shift, if someone smeared or did something wrong - he "jerked off", and he shouted it while on the tower, and was heard at a distance of 100 meters inside the tank, while the engine was running and systems and wearing headsets ... and then clearly and clearly explaining why such a "trouble" happened ...

But my acquaintance with different models of tanks did not end there. During my service I was fortunate to serve on all our main types of medium and OB tanks.

Let's start with T64B. In terms of fire - a very good car, equipped with an 1-X42 sight, which we often called it with a second name - PDPS (Sight-Range Finder, Tracking Device), and in principle it is indistinguishable from the T80B, which thanks to a more advanced chassis and GT- The engine, which allows to move more smoothly, is even the best "fireman".

Here is his field of vision, that is, what the gunner sees is the tank guns when he looks through the eyepiece of the rifle sight.


Sorry, the image is not color, so it requires a little refinement. At the bottom of the sight there is a small panel where the information is displayed:
- about the readiness of the cannon for firing (in case of readiness a green light comes on);
- about the selected type of projectile (the luminous letters “O”, “B”, “H”, “U” appear);
- on how many targets reflected the laser beam and, accordingly, the measurement result will be obtained,
- measured distance in meters;
- On the inclusion of "commander target designation" (the red light comes on).

Everything is very informative and does not overload the gunner with excessive information.

In addition, the gunner carries out the measurement of the range with a laser rangefinder and firing from a tank gun using only the “Central sighting mark with a vertical bar” or as it is called in short - the “Central square”.

In the case when you need to manually enter data for shooting, this is done by turning the “ring” located above the control panel, a “horizontal bar” moves visually in the sight, which must be combined with the desired mark on the “aiming angle scale” of the desired type of projectile ... but this should be done very rarely, the main mode, of course, is automatic. With the automatic firing mode, a lot depends on the proper operation of the SLA (Fire Control System), one of its component parts is the TBV (Tank Ballistic Calculator), in which firing conditions are measured (recorded) by sensors of firing conditions, namely corrections to wind, speed target movements and tank roll are entered automatically, and manual corrections are entered for air temperature, change in initial velocity depending on the batch of charges, atmospheric pressure, barrel bore wear, temperature charge round.


Based on certain algorithms, a TBV generates calculated values ​​of aiming angles in the vertical and horizontal planes and gives commands to the actuators of the cannon and turrets. The gun not only automatically becomes at the desired angle of throwing, but also turns at the desired angle of lead, the “central square” remains stationary. Due to which shooting is carried out as follows (simplified):
- the gunner leads to the selected target "Central Square";
- without being distracted from the aiming, it is convinced that the type of the loaded projectile corresponds to the chosen target;
- pressing the button on the “control panel” measures the range;
- then, making sure that in the field of view a green light is burning - “Ready” and holding the “Central Square” on the target, it fires a shot.

With the T72, things are not so simple, with a general high reliability, this machine is less effective precisely in terms of fire. Let's start with the fact that it has a TPD-1K sight (Tank Scope-Range Finder).

His field of view:


Here, too, a small explanation is required - under the number 9 there is a “luminous rangefinder mark”, a brightly burning ringlet, which can be located anywhere in the field of view. In automatic mode, this “ring” is aimed at the selected target and is measured by pressing the button on the PU. The fact that the measurement took place is indicated by the fact that the “range scale” starts moving and stops with the desired mark against the “index”, at this moment “the central square moves in a vertical plane up or down. The firing data is entered using a “corrector”, for which the commander uses a special table that finds the desired value of the amendment, reports it to the gunner and the gun already performs the necessary manipulations ... Also, unlike the automated system T64b and T80B, the lateral corrections to wind and speed targets are automatically not developed by a ballistic corrector.

The very same shooting is as follows:
- the gunner suggests a “distance measuring ring” at the selected target and presses the button for measuring the range;
- at the end of the “ranging scale” movement, the gunner suggests “a central square on the target,” or a square on the side scale, depending on the movement of the target and the tank, and he should choose the correction for lead-ins himself, as a result, the gun becomes the desired angle throwing, and on the lead angle;
- looking up from the eyepiece, he looks at the panel of “choosing the type of projectile” in order to understand that the type is chosen correctly (in principle, this can be not done);
- making sure that the light of the “Ready” signal is lit above the ranging scale, produces a shot.

So, the time needed to make a shot from the T72 has to be spent more than when firing from the T64B or T80B, in addition, the LMS with the “corrector” is less accurate than with the TBV. Therefore, I believe that thanks to a more sophisticated sighting system and LMS, the “old” tanks T64B and T80B have more chances in the confrontation with the “not modernized” tank T72.

And honestly, it would be interesting to take a look at the “biathlon”, in which both modernized and non-modernized T72B and T80B would compete, a lot would become clear.

So it is, of course, good that the T72B3 tanks are now equipped with Sosnoy-U and the SLA, but if such a complex were equipped with the T80B tanks in the case of the Russian Armed Forces, the output would be a more powerful machine.

The only huge drawback of the T80B and its PDP sight is that it allows you to shoot only the radio-controlled Cobra, but this is fixable. It is just necessary either to make the necessary modernization of the PDPS using the solutions and components used on the 1-X46 - PDPN (Sight Range Finder Observation Device) in order to fire guided laser-guided projectiles or to replace it entirely, which is simple as they are similar in size and sights themselves are made in Russia. This, by the way, will make it possible to remove from the tank a lot of unnecessary equipment of the old KUV, which will not only ease the weight of the tank, but also add free space inside the tank tower.



As a result, in the event of the failure of the Sosny-U tank, it will not lose the ability to use the CCU (Guided Armament Complex), what will happen on the T72BZ tank, as its standard optical sight does not allow firing the TUS (Tank-guided Projectile) ... Yes and retraining of personnel from PDPS to PDPN does not take much time, since they are very similar. And here I come to the logical conclusion that the modernization of our "old" tanks should be done differently. What is T72B3, was at the "level" in the year so 1995, now this is not enough. No need to try to “cram in the unshakeable” or poorly “crammed”, and, using the existing developments, to make the maximum unification of the tank fleet. Otherwise, our "new" tank will not be able to fight on equal terms even with Chinese cars. How to do it? You can, of course, go to the T72 “family” tank, but this path is not entirely correct. Residents of the Far East will confirm that the network of railways and highways in that region, shall we say, “does not reach world standards”, which raises the issue of operational maneuverability of tank units and formations very high. And at this stage, it can only provide T80 with DGT, this is the reality. The T-92 T-90 B-5 engine, similar in power, unfortunately does not have the same reliability, besides, the presence of a liquid cooling system is not the best in a region where temperatures fall for a long time and stay below -80 degrees Celsius ... So to abandon ТXNUMX, as from the “base chassis” - is irrational.

We must follow the path of creating a "unified fighting compartment" on the basis of the T90MS tank turret. This means that such a tower must be equipped with:
- AZ, adapted to accommodate BPS "increased power", including T80. Alas, the Ministry of Health, having a slightly larger capacity, also has a number of design flaws, namely, a larger lesion area, more complex and less reliable cable drives, requiring constant adjustments, as well as more reducing displacement, if necessary, m. from department of management in fighting;
- sighting and command complex "Sosna-U";
- additional sight 1Г46 PDN;
- unconditional installation of STV (Tank Armament Stabilizer) and SLA of the type T90MS;
- additional command device, such as TKH5;
- closed LSD;
- a new installation of the “paired” machine gun, which would allow firing from it at the moment when the gun is at the loading angle;
- more advanced means of communication and control, allowing to transmit the necessary information both in voice and in graphic mode, and having “guaranteed durability” of at least 2 hours.

In addition, it is necessary to strengthen the booking by installing additional booking modules throughout the entire hull. There is no doubt the need for an APU, I think, better by the type of Shilka ZNS 23-4.

On tanks with engines of at least 1200 hp The installation of the GOP (Hydrostatic Transmission) is necessary, which will increase maneuverability and cost effectiveness.

Yes, such an upgrade, of course, will not be the most “cheap”, but it will allow to achieve a lot. And most importantly, to provide our army with quite modern tanks to fully equip the Armed Forces with tanks based on Armat. It is possible to carry out such modernization on the production base of the Omsk plant, freeing UVZ from these works.

I really hope that the current leadership of the Ministry of Defense will take a different look at the problem of the re-equipment of our Armed Forces. Our soldiers and officers deserve to serve and, if necessary, to fight on modern technology, which would more fully allow them to realize their capabilities.

In the preparation were used
1. Technical specification and maintenance instruction about. 219, 1 Book.
2. Technical specification and maintenance instruction of the T72B tank.
3. Instructions for use sight 1А40.
Author:
92 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Denis
    Denis 25 November 2013 07: 54
    12
    Need is needed, only it’s not one year
    Child and that 9 month. wears, although technology has been developed for centuries
    And do not immediately change suddenly, gradually
    To modernize, the engines have not yet developed a resource and it’s easier to change the electronic stuffing than to make new ones
    1. fartfraer
      fartfraer 25 November 2013 08: 08
      +7
      ))) we still have t-62 in service in units)) yes, for our happiness, and t-72, about "other animals" already dared not dream
      1. M. Peter
        M. Peter 26 November 2013 18: 12
        0
        Is it? No.
        They wrote them off, however, all.
        1. fartfraer
          fartfraer 27 November 2013 08: 19
          +2
          what are you? wrote off in 42 msd? there are only 62 in chicha, no 72,80, and even more so 90 I haven’t seen there (I’ll clarify, we are talking about the period 2004-2006) so tell the unaccompanied managers how all 62 have been written off for a long time, ok, uncle?
    2. lelikas
      lelikas 25 November 2013 15: 16
      +7
      Quote: Denis
      Need is needed, only it’s not one year
      Child and that 9 month. wears, although technology has been developed for centuries
      And do not immediately change suddenly, gradually
      To modernize, the engines have not yet developed a resource and it’s easier to change the electronic stuffing than to make new ones


      It's about money, there are a lot of upgrades - they chose the cheapest.
    3. POBEDA
      POBEDA 7 December 2013 04: 34
      0
      Why spend a lot of money on a major modernization of the T-72 and supplies to the troops, if new modern armats are soon to be launched? Are we going to fight the adversary tomorrow? Does it burn like that? Thank God we can afford to calmly rearm, because enough for local conflicts and t-62, but serious hooligans and WMD can be punched ...
  2. EvilLion
    EvilLion 25 November 2013 08: 50
    +5
    The T-90MS needs to be refined for the needs of its own aircraft and launched into series production, until the Armata actually exists, does everything better than its predecessor and is ready for production. As in aviation, the PAK FA will fly into series in 2016, 2017, or in 2020 no one will say for sure, but the Su-30SM and Su-35 will not allow the pilots to sit on the ground during this time. Don't bother with modernizing the T-72, because at a price it's not much more profitable than a new tank.
    1. svp67
      25 November 2013 08: 56
      +9
      Quote: EvilLion
      The T-90MS needs to be refined for the needs of its own aircrafts and launched into series, the release of the message until the moment when the "Armata" will actually exist,

      Alas, this is not realistic under current conditions.
      UVZ is tensely coping with the "Indian" order, and in the future, due to the need to switch to "Armata", the situation at UVZ may become even "not more fun". So, the only way out for our Armed Forces to get a normal tank is to carry out a deep modernization of the existing fleet of T72 and T80 tanks ...
      1. andrey-ivanov
        andrey-ivanov 25 November 2013 12: 12
        +2
        In today's conditions, I do not quite understand what it means to "carry out a deep modernization of the existing fleet of T72 and T80 tanks"? The T-72 has already been modernized nowhere else (T-90 and T-90MS), only in the army their "cat cried", MS is not at all. T-72B3 is clearly a "lame duck" after the so-called modernization. The T-80s were going to be removed from service altogether, and the plant in Omsk, which produced the XNUMXs, as an enterprise for the production of armored vehicles (according to the press) is practically lost.
        1. svp67
          25 November 2013 12: 21
          +8
          Quote: andrey-ivanov
          what does "deep modernization of the existing fleet of T72 and T80 tanks" mean?

          And the fact that the fleet of these vehicles, of various modifications, we now have about 10 tanks ... This is a very large value.
          Quote: andrey-ivanov
          The T-72 has already been upgraded nowhere else (T-90 and T-90MS
          Yes, the T90 is a deep modernization of the T72, and this is largely not the T72 ...
          Quote: andrey-ivanov
          T-80 in general are going to remove from weapons

          So I want to make a "protest" against such a hasty decision. T80, still very much needed by my country. Since there is no full replacement for him, especially for the Far East region
          Quote: andrey-ivanov
          and the plant in Omsk, which produced eighty-eight, as an enterprise for the production of armored vehicles (according to the press) is practically lost.

          No Omsk plant is still alive.
          Joint Stock Company "KBTM" (formerly "Omsktransmash" or, as it is commonly called unofficially in the region, "Omsk Tank Plant")
          Today, the Transport Engineering Design Bureau (part of the Uralvagonzavod Research and Production Complex, Nizhniy Tagil) is modernizing metallurgical production: the third steel-making furnace has been put into operation, new modern technologies are being introduced to increase the production of foundry products. Omsk tank builders are also fulfilling a state order for the modernization of Russian tanks.

          http://www.tehnoomsk.ru/?q=content/омский-танковый-завод-растём-понемногу
          1. andrey-ivanov
            andrey-ivanov 25 November 2013 14: 22
            10
            And the fact that the fleet of these vehicles, of various modifications, we now have about 10 tanks ... This is a very large value.

            Where do you think most of those 10000 tanks are now? And in what condition? And does it make sense to modernize the machines of the early 80s, which are full of them? Have you seen what the storage sites for this equipment in today's Russia are like? I saw one of them ... :( A depressing sight. There is not so much upgrading as it is necessary to restore. The machines are dismantled, which is called "to the armor", ie everything, or almost everything, that could be stolen from them and sold. .. well, imagine then yourself, so we don't have 10000 T-72 tanks.


            [/ quote] Yes, the T90 is a deep modernization of the T72, and this is largely not the T72 .. [/ quote]
            So much for the deep modernization of the T-72 (I'm talking about the T-90) as you said, i.e. almost a new tank. And not a "cosmetic repair" in the form of the T-72B3, which once again saved money to the detriment of combat capabilities and protection. In fact, with the modernization, they were 20 years late, and what is the point in such works, if the tank still falls short of the characteristics of the present-day. NATO machines and, it seems, even China. Isn't it wiser not to spray funds and throw everything into revision and the earliest possible release of new models of equipment? I am not at all one of those who pour mud on domestic equipment and its designers, but against the background of loud statements about all programs for "modern" modernization, etc., the cars that enter the troops after modernization look like some unfinished cripples. The program was carried out, the finances were mastered (i.e. stolen), the report went upstairs, Channel 1 concocted an enthusiastic report for the layman. The army lost again. Bitterly...
            1. POBEDA
              POBEDA 7 December 2013 04: 17
              +1
              No need to cry because they twisted and drank! The main value of the tank in its hull, tower, gun! Everything else, of course, costs serious money, but these are consumables, opportunities for modernization! Watch a film about the modernization of Abrams tanks, they actually dance from the naked body, and the rest is changed to the modern one. This is reasonable and normal!
        2. Aleks tv
          Aleks tv 25 November 2013 15: 24
          14
          Quote: andrey-ivanov
          In today's conditions, I do not quite understand what it means to "carry out a deep modernization of the existing fleet of T72 and T80 tanks"? The T-72 has already been modernized nowhere else (T-90 and T-90MS), only in the army their "cat cried", MS is not at all. T-72B3 is clearly a "lame duck" after the so-called modernization. T-80s were going to be removed from service at all,


          To Almaty yet on foot to the moon (on delivery SERIAL samples in LINEAR parts, not trial operation).
          And what do we have at the moment?
          - 500 T-90,
          - lame modernization of T-72Б3,
          - removal from service of the T-80.

          What is needed is a DEEP modernization of technology.
          I agree with Sergey: bring to mind T-72Б3 and modernize (unified) T-80. The option of modernization in the article is painted clearly and clearly.
          The fleet of such machines will look decent until the arrival of Almaty. And after its appearance and saturation in the troops before acceptable (!!!) volumes, modernized T-80 and Т72 will still serve at BHViT bases in the form of a mobile resource.

          To account T-80:
          As a fan of T-72B, I have stated and will declare:
          Withdrawal from service at the moment, the T-80 is a CRIME.
          1. Alekseev
            Alekseev 25 November 2013 19: 50
            +6
            Quote: Aleks tv
            As a fan of T-72B, I have stated and will declare:
            Withdrawal from service at the moment, the T-80 is a CRIME.

            Absolutely accurate definition! good
            An interesting article by a colleague and classmate in the Khgv VTKU. Explained for many sensibly what kind of "hrendelpupins" and p-ka broneBoyko remembered.
            But, in my, of course, subjective opinion, the policy regarding the MBT fleet of the Russian army was planned correctly. Here they carry it into life with perversions.
            It is clear that T-80s, having a sufficient resource, must be maintained until there is MBT on the Armat platform. And even something to improve in the little things: improving remote sensing, lattice, ext. booking, r / st, etc.
            It is clear that with the capital T-72 it is necessary to modernize, at least on a budget, according to option B3, but the quality of work should be much higher. There are a lot of fairly simple and relatively inexpensive things that can significantly increase the combat qualities of this machine: a carefully thought-out DZ placement scheme, lattices, protected by the fire protection system, enhanced protection of the sights heads, an armored box for a non-mechanized warhead with knock-out panels at the back of the tower, etc.
            Well, it is quite clear that although the old horses still plow for some time, the need for new MBT is overripe.
            That is, the plan is correct, the practical implementation is bad, which, in fact, is not surprising, given the realities ...
          2. andrey-ivanov
            andrey-ivanov 27 November 2013 16: 02
            +1
            I get the impression that the "Armata" of our army can be seen as its own ears. sad They say a lot about her, and even that "the most-most" will be. Later. Someday. Maybe ... She's a secret "Armata", you can't even show it outwardly. Well, at least a general layout, though. What is the secret in appearance then? Though from afar but retouched? A year or two it doesn't matter where the thread will light up. Maybe there is nothing to show yet? The timing of the test is being shifted all the time. They will pull the cat by the tail (that is, money from the budget), and then declare the project unpromising, as with Object 195. They will start to plan something new, the very thing. belay
            1. POBEDA
              POBEDA 7 December 2013 04: 24
              0
              Do you need a photo? You are welcome! Draw! Classic layout, low silhouette, 6-7 rollers, mtd-120-1500 hp, uninhabited tower, automatic loader, 3 people crew, active protection, dynamic protection, gun, possibly up to 150mm.
      2. Aleks tv
        Aleks tv 25 November 2013 15: 09
        +5
        Quote: svp67
        So, the only way for our aircraft to get a normal tank is to carry out a deep modernization of the existing fleet of T72 and T80 tanks ...

        yes
        Well: "the tankman said - the tankman did."
        laughing
        Thank you very much for the material, Sergey!
        good
        Already read several times, savoring.
        Continuous practice without any theory. This was exactly what was interesting: the procedure with the T-64 and T-80 sighting system before firing a shot.
        Very detailed and interesting. Just like a continuation of combat training.
        hi

        About TPD-K1 work:
        All right. The rangefinder brand (red luminous ring) is really located anywhere in the sight of the sight. More often, lower and to the left of the central angular reticle.
        Small clarification:
        The corrector on the T-72B is set initially before shooting (in two nomograms) and when shooting (in the future) is not touched. It is amended 1-2 times by changing weather conditions.
        Those. shot production:
        - We click on the type of ammunition,
        - With the thumb of the left hand, click "AZ",
        - Cheburashka pointed a rangefinder ring on the target,
        - With the thumb of the right hand, we press "distance measurement", the reticle starts to "go", the "ready" lamp lights up,
        - We aim the central "square" on the target,
        - With the index finger of your right hand, press the "gun", making a shot.
        From the moment of measuring the range to the shot, a maximum reduction in time is necessary, then the T-72B will hit on target.

        drinks
        1. svp67
          25 November 2013 18: 25
          +4
          Aleks tv hi
          Quote: Aleks tv
          About work

          Lesh, everything is correct, but I didn’t say everything here either.
          1. In the LMS it is good that some of the information is received from the sensors and, accordingly, the data for shooting change quickly, especially, which makes me happy, since the appearance of the barrel bend sensor is VERY HIGHLY affecting the accuracy of shooting, especially at long range.
          2. The PDPS and PDPN, especially, have a very large difference in multiplicity, which allows you to periodically inspect the surroundings, then VERY accurately direct the "CU". And most importantly, it is convenient and easy to do, and SMOOTHLY.
          1. Aleks tv
            Aleks tv 25 November 2013 22: 10
            +2
            Quote: svp67
            The PDPS and PDPN, especially, have a very large difference in multiplicity, which allows you to periodically inspect the surroundings, then VERY accurately direct the "CU". And most importantly, it is convenient and easy to do, and SMOOTHLY.

            Sergey, this is SUPER in the MSA T-80.
            The same thing has been talked about more than once in smoking rooms.

            With such capabilities, the gunner can perform both the commander’s function (field survey) and the gunner’s function (narrowly approximately for aiming) ...
            Fantastic.

            Ps The angles of view and the magnitude of TPD-K1 (T-72Б) and SOSNA-U (T-72Б3) were reset at the bottom of the comments on the previous article. Pine has the same principle.
            1. Alekseev
              Alekseev 26 November 2013 16: 23
              +1
              Quote: Aleks tv
              With such capabilities, the gunner can perform both the commander’s function (field survey) and the gunner’s function (narrowly approximately for aiming) ...

              Yes, PDPS is a cool sight, I see no reason not to put it (in the modification, at least on the T-64B1, where the nodes associated with the projectile were removed) on the T-72B3. Maybe production does not allow ... request
      3. EvilLion
        EvilLion 25 November 2013 16: 32
        +2
        "Armata" will not give an exhaust for several years. UVZ riveted up to 1000 tanks per year in the USSR and produced T-90A for the Russian Federation in small batches.
    2. alex56
      alex56 25 November 2013 09: 00
      +1
      We need to finalize the T-90MS for the needs of our aircraft and launch it in a series

      EvilLion, and what do you think should be this revision?
      I’m just very far from such questions and would like to know your opinion)
      1. cosmos111
        cosmos111 25 November 2013 11: 41
        +6
        Quote: svp67

        I really hope that the current leadership of the Ministry of Defense will take a different look at the problem of rearmament of our Armed Forces.

        In the Moscow Region, with the re-equipment of ground forces with the advent of Shoigu, nothing has changed for the better and will not change.
        Quote: svp67
        We must follow the path of creating a “unified fighting compartment” based on the tower of the T90MS tank.

        THIS IS MOST IMPORTANT THAT SHOULD BE DONE.
        Also, an increase in the carrying capacity of the tracked chassis.
      2. knn54
        knn54 25 November 2013 16: 04
        +6
        -alex56: what do you think this revision should be?
        In the "new" tanks there are no GLONASS / GPS receivers. There is no automatic target tracking system. In addition, the tank has old weather sensors, barrel wear sensors, instead of new V-92C2 engines with a capacity of 1 thousand hp are "old engines (after kapitalki) V-84 at 840 hp, and not a modern complex of dynamic protection" Relic ", but the old" Contact-5 ", which does not save from tandem ammunition. Of all the innovations in the tank, only the Belarusian Sosna-U sight and modern digital communication systems appeared, the rest 30 years ago (from the base model). The cost of modernization and additional equipment is 52 million rubles.
        At the same time, the T-72M1 model, designed for Algeria (at a price of 50 million!), Is equipped with an automatic target tracking system, digital sensors for corrections and weather conditions, a remote anti-aircraft installation and air conditioning.
        The machine for the Russian army is WORSE and ROAD of the export version ...
        1. EvilLion
          EvilLion 25 November 2013 16: 37
          +2
          Well, everyone is waiting for Serdyukv to be imprisoned.
      3. EvilLion
        EvilLion 25 November 2013 16: 36
        0
        12.7 mm anti-aircraft machine gun is needed, it would be nice to put the 2A82 gun on the T-90MS, in principle, it is not allowed to be installed, since export is prohibited. Khlopotov had something else, he generally liked the T-90MS.
  3. major071
    major071 25 November 2013 10: 00
    +9
    Sergey, many thanks for the article, especially for comparing the T-64 and T-72 sighting systems. He studied at the Chelyabinsk Higher Tank Command School from 1989 to 1993 year. But our main tank was the T-72, and if we drove everything from the 62 to the 80, we only fired the main caliber with the T-72, the rest of the liners and only once, I don’t remember exactly. I already forgot everything, since almost immediately after graduation I left for a civilian. On T-72, everything was correct, the amendments had to be considered by myself, but with the necessary dexterity and skills, shooting was not difficult. At least I had no problems with this, it was always excellent on fire (as opposed to drill). But everything is known by comparison, and if there is nothing to compare, it is better to rely on the opinion of a specialist.
  4. killganoff
    killganoff 25 November 2013 13: 17
    +3
    Yes, 80 for the vastness of our country could still fit. It was the best car of its time and her potential was great. But apparently, we do not need such types of weapons that are dangerous to NATO. We will punch homo to please the West. Soon we’ll roll back to the slingshots.
    1. svp67
      25 November 2013 13: 24
      +4
      Quote: killganoff
      Soon we’ll roll back to the slingshots.
      You will laugh, but one of the topics for upgrading T72 is called "Slingshot"
      1. cosmos111
        cosmos111 25 November 2013 14: 56
        +4
        Quote: svp67
        You will laugh, but one of the topics for upgrading T72 is called "Slingshot

        T-72 B2., Slingshot, in all respects exceeded T-72B3.
        A diesel engine with a capacity of 1000 hp was installed. (B-92).
        But in a series of modernization did not go.
      2. andrey-ivanov
        andrey-ivanov 25 November 2013 15: 13
        +9
        But "Slingshot" in its characteristics was clearly higher .. and more expensive. That ultimately predetermined the fate of this modification. And in the T-72B3, the "stubs" from the "Slingshot" are used. India, Algeria and Azerbaijan (especially) have funds to buy new equipment, while Russia does not even have funds for normal modernization of the old. Somehow ...
        We have the Universiade 2013, Sochi 2014, the World Cup, one more Universiade and many other interesting things planned. and you’re climbing with your tanks .. Go-go, don’t interfere with your work.
        1. Aleks tv
          Aleks tv 25 November 2013 15: 43
          +5
          Quote: andrey-ivanov
          But Slingshot was clearly superior in its characteristics.

          Yeah, Andrey ...

          Repost:
          ... B3 is a step backward compared to B2.
          The Slingshot has only the 2A46M-4 gun, and not the M-5. But it is fixable.
          The Slingshot has the same sights (I don’t know about the ACS), but Relic, and not Contact-V, is in defense. Dvigl B-92, which means there is a gain and change in the transmission, and the suspension has been further developed (obviously which is no worse than on the T-72BA).
          There is a system of electronic protection against magnetic mines.
          There are bars (in the appendage to the Relic).
          There is a regular "Cape".
          There is a Curtain, but without spotlights.
          But ... the same cover on the Pine (in the photo it is moved and held on two bolts, XXI century, damn it). The same TKN-3 and open ZPU.
          Eheh ...
          1. cth; fyn
            cth; fyn 25 November 2013 16: 41
            +3
            As far as I know, if instead of B-84 put B-92, then MTO needs to be redone, right? and also change the transmission otherwise the "extra" 260 horses will tear it, and UVZ also threatened to stick the T-72 tower from the T-90A "without problems" (by the way, the shoulder straps are the same) ...
            Maybe UVZ got too high and it is time for the antimonopoly service to start working?
            1. Alekseev
              Alekseev 25 November 2013 20: 10
              +3
              Quote: cth; fyn
              As far as I know, if instead of installing a V-84, put a V-92, then it is necessary to redo the MTO, right?

              There is no need to redo anything there, it is just the same engine, but it just has higher boost pressure. Well, technological, not design differences. Strengthening the BKP is reduced, roughly speaking, to an increase in the thickness of some shafts, gears, the use of reinforced bearings, and an increase in the friction surface in friction devices.
              This is one of the main advantages of this motor.
              And sticking a tower is not a problem.
              But you can’t upgrade a good tank to infinity.
              The time of the tank of the 21st century has already come, and it will not be replaced by a good tank of the 20th century.
            2. Aleks tv
              Aleks tv 25 November 2013 22: 04
              +3
              Quote: cth; fyn
              As far as I know, if instead of B-84 put B-92, then MTO needs to be redone, right? and change the transmission otherwise the "extra" 260 horses will tear it

              Andrey, this is not a problem (the namesake already wrote, I'm late today ...).
              I will try to list what I remember:

              -Transmission:
              They strengthen the BKP (satellites in the planetary gear and the bearing of the support of the sun gear), Install radiators of increased heat transfer,
              Strengthen the friction clutch of the fan.
              - Running:
              Reinforced hydraulic shock absorbers are installed, torsion bars with a high level of acceptable values.
              Plus, the installation of an expanded roller, strengthening and modifying the drive wheel and sloth - everything is done according to the plan for switching to parallel RMSh.

              If you are interested in the complete list of changes in the transition of the T-72B from the V-84 to the V-92 engine, then look for "modernization of the T-72BA". This has already been worked out as planned, the troops have such machines.
        2. EvilLion
          EvilLion 25 November 2013 16: 52
          +1
          I would not say that they take so many of them, and the T-90 "Bhishma" is not a top-end configuration.
  5. Rakti-kali
    Rakti-kali 25 November 2013 13: 39
    0
    The B-92 of the T-90 tank, alas, does not have the same reliability, in addition, the presence of a liquid cooling system is not the best in the region where temperatures drop for a long time and keep below -5 degrees Celsius ... So, refuse the T80, as from the "base chassis" - irrationally.

    Well, the T-80 chassis is also far from ideal, for example, tests of T-80 tanks in the Siberian Military District revealed problems with air purifiers in winter due to a decrease in the capacity of a gas turbine engine due to clogging of the cyclones with dense, almost icy snow. This led to the need to stop the tanks, to perform a laborious operation to manually clean VO cyclones, or to melt the snow with the exhaust gases of another tank, or to heat VO cyclones with the exhaust gases of their own engine with the installation of a dimensional deflector at the stern and long downtime of the tanks.
    Installing a removable pipe on the air intake certainly eliminates this trouble when the tank moves "in a marching way" on snow-covered roads, but when driving "in a fighting way" on dry loose snow, as well as in a blizzard or snowstorm, forced stops cannot be avoided.
    At the same time, a tank’s forced idle time in a combat situation is not less than half an hour (only the heating of the cyclones lasts up to 15 minutes) and requires the crew to leave the machine for maintenance of the air cleaner.
    As for the starting qualities of the engines, the T-80 has two ways to start the engine: from batteries and from a donor tank. In addition to the above methods, the T-90 can start from the air system (main), in a combined way and from a tug.
    With combat readiness No. 1, the start of the T-80 tank’s gas turbine engine requires a longer time than the start of the T-90 tank’s heated diesel engine. The piston engine starts in a few seconds, and the start of the gas turbine engine takes 50 seconds.
    1. svp67
      25 November 2013 13: 54
      +3
      Quote: Rakti-Kali
      than starting a warmed-up diesel of a T-90 tank.

      And how much should it be heated, and then heated?
      1. Rakti-kali
        Rakti-kali 25 November 2013 18: 44
        0
        Quote: svp67
        And how much should it be heated, and then heated?

        after three day freeze MTU preparation time for start of movement at an ambient temperature of -20 ° C and -40 ° C, respectively, 11,5 and 23,7 minutes.

        This is about the T-90, as for the T-72, then
        at an ambient temperature of -36 ° C after long-term freezing of the T-72 tanks for 43 hours, the average duration of the power plant warm-up was 14 minutes, and during the performance of XNUMX-hour marches the tanks covered with tarpaulin in the evening did not have time to cool down, and the engines started in just a few minutes work heater.

        Naturally, conscripts can be transported longer, but as can be seen from the VNIITM report (2001), the T-90 and T-72 are in no way inferior to the T-80 in terms of engine starting performance at low temperatures.
        when testing the T-80 tank at a temperature of -40 ° C, the readiness of the MTO to move the tank occurs no earlier than in 25-30 minutes, although the engine can be started in 2-5 minutes. The duration of MTO preparation for movement includes self-heating of oil in the transmission and GOP tanks
  6. Rakti-kali
    Rakti-kali 25 November 2013 13: 39
    0
    With regard to the combat readiness of tanks at low temperatures, the official report on the results of winter tests in the Urals in 1973 at an ambient temperature of -36 ° C after long-term freezing of T-72 tanks for 43 hours, the average duration of heating the power plant was 14 minutes, and when making 90-hour marches, the tanks covered with tarpaulin in the evening did not have time to cool down, and the engines started only after a few minutes of operation by the heater. According to the results of special tests of the T-2001 tank in the VNIITM freezer in 20, after three days of freezing, the MTU preparation time for the start of movement was at an ambient temperature of -40 ° C and -11,5 ° C, respectively 23,7 and XNUMX minutes.
    At the same time, when testing the T-80 tank at a temperature of -40 ° C, the MTO is ready for the tank to move no earlier than 25-30 minutes, although the engine can be started in 2-5 minutes. The duration of MTO preparation for movement includes self-heating of oil in transmission and GOP tanks and substantially depends on the grades of used engine and transmission oils, and if the troops do not have scarce and expensive IPM-10 and GTE oils will be filled with B-80B backup oil, how much it will take time to prepare the MTO of the T-XNUMX tank to the start of movement with thickened oils and the absence of a heater in the power plant? What actions should the tank crew take after a long freeze in this case?
    However, at ambient temperatures below -20 ° C, the start of engines for the T-90 and T-80 tanks is made from warm batteries. This condition already requires preparatory work for launching the installation of warm batteries on tanks; the standard time for this work is 30 minutes.
    Therefore, at low ambient temperatures with combat readiness No. 1 for tanks of any type, it is recommended to prevent the temperature of the oil and power plant units from falling below a certain level by periodically warming up the power plants: the T-90 tank - by starting the heater, T-80 - by starting the gas turbine engine and short-term its operation at idle mode.
    Thus, at very low ambient temperatures, the gas turbine tank has no advantages over the diesel tank in the duration of preparation for the start of movement. It does not have an alternative energy source to batteries and consumes significantly more fuel to maintain thermal conditions during combat readiness No. 1.
    In addition, one should not forget about fuel consumption - in a tank with a gas turbine engine it is significantly higher, which requires more refueling, increases the time for refueling and reduces the time for the tank to move cleanly and, accordingly, significantly reduces its operational mobility.
    1. svp67
      25 November 2013 14: 11
      +6
      Well, everything was "killed" T80 ...
      And maybe now let's remember the fluids used in the cooling system - their brands and prices, and what happens when this fluid "finds" a small, well, just "a hole like a charcoal" hole, how to replace it ????? And how this will affect the operational properties. And the T80 simply does not.
      Further, for the heater to work, one of the crew members must leave their place in order to open and then close the heater hatch - not the best manipulation under enemy fire, opening the hatch can cause the pre-heater to fail. In addition, after heating the systems and the engine itself with a heater, you still need to warm the engine for a little while longer, since the temperature drops immediately upon start-up, due to the peculiarities of the cooling system. On the T80, and this is not necessary ...
      It does not have an alternative energy source to batteries and consumes significantly more fuel to maintain thermal conditions during combat readiness
      has - external start wires from another tank.
      And the question is, you don’t have any data there - for how long did the unit at T72 march to a distance of 100 km, and for what time at T80 ...
      1. cosmos111
        cosmos111 25 November 2013 15: 06
        +4
        Quote: svp67
        Well, everything "killed" T80 ..

        T-80 is a tank built and operated at a different technological level.
        Modern Russia, just this tank will not pull purely economically.
        Quote: svp67
        T-72B3 ... or maybe we need another "beast"?

        At this stage, until the years 20-25, the T-90 is in modifications, the T-72 with the T-90 MC tower (I agree with the author).
      2. Rakti-kali
        Rakti-kali 25 November 2013 19: 27
        +1
        Quote: svp67
        Well, everything was "killed" T80 ...

        I do not want to denigrate the T-80 in any way - it is a wonderful tank, but in terms of engine starting characteristics it is in no way superior to the "diesel", and in terms of the aggregate performance characteristics, in my opinion, it is somewhat inferior to diesel tanks.
        Quote: svp67
        Further, for the operation of the heater, one of the crew members must leave their place

        Starting a "cold" engine under enemy bullets? Neeee did not hear ... They usually keep the MTO warm at No. 1.
        Quote: svp67
        In addition, after heating the systems and the engine itself with a heater, you still need to warm the engine for a little while longer, since the temperature drops immediately upon start-up, due to the peculiarities of the cooling system.

        The digit I have quoted above indicates the time it takes to prepare for movement, warming up the engine with its output in the operating temperature mode is included in the specified time.
        Considering that measures to prepare batteries for starting the engine at temperatures below -20 C for T-80 and T-72/90 take the same time (standard - 30 minutes), and preparations for starting the engine (warming up with a heater and the engine reaching operating temperature , warming up the working fluids) of the diesel engine until it’s ready to start moving, the aggregate is slightly shorter than the time required for the gas turbine engine (starting and self-heating), and from readiness No. 1, the preparation time for movement for the T-80 and T-72/90 is the same (but the T-80 it is necessary to start a gas turbine engine, which leads to greater fuel consumption, and the T-72/90 may be limited to a heater), it can be concluded that diesel tanks are slightly superior to gas turbines in terms of starting characteristics of the engine.
        Quote: svp67
        has - external start wires from another tank.

        Well yes. From the batteries of another tank.
        Quote: svp67
        And the question is, you don’t have any data there - for how long did the unit at T72 march to a distance of 100 km, and for what time at T80 ...

        The average speed on dry dirt road for the T-72 and T-80 is 35-45 km / h.
        Fuel consumption per 100 km on a dry dirt road up to 300-450 liters, on a paved road up to 170-200 liters for the T-72, and accordingly 450-790 liters and 430-500 liters for the T-80.
        The T-80 has a capacity of 1090 liters of internal fuel tanks. Another 680 liters of fuel is placed in five outdoor tanks. You can install three additional barrels of 200 liters. Thus, the transported stock of fuel reaches 2370 liters.
        The T-72 has four internal and five external fuel tanks with a total capacity of 705 and 495 liters, respectively, and two additional barrels with a capacity of 390 liters can be connected. Thus, the transported stock of fuel reaches 1590 liters.
        Considering that a march of 100 km does not require stops for check-in and service, I think it will not be difficult for you to calculate everything yourself.
        1. svp67
          25 November 2013 20: 07
          +3
          Quote: Rakti-Kali
          The average speed on dry dirt road for the T-72 and T-80 is 35-45 km / h.
          is a theory. In practice, the difference can be up to 10 km / h in favor of the T80. Not one "iron" can compete with the "whistle" ... For now.
          1. Rakti-kali
            Rakti-kali 26 November 2013 07: 59
            0
            Quote: svp67
            this is theory. In practice, the difference can be up to 10 km / h in favor of the T80. Not one "iron" can compete with the "whistle" ... For now.

            On the highway, not burdened with obstacles and difficult terrain - yes, but "on the ground" the advantages of the gas turbine engine are offset by the greater throttle response and variability of the diesel engine, and when driving in a column, the speed of 30-40 km / h is the same for both types of engine.
        2. svp67
          25 November 2013 20: 10
          +3
          Quote: Rakti-Kali
          Starting a "cold" engine under enemy bullets? Neeee did not hear ... They usually keep the MTO warm at No. 1.

          On the current "Punic" YES, but in any conflict with a more or less developed country and its army, this will not be possible, otherwise it is like a "light in the night ...", which is why I have always been a supporter of the Armed Forces of Ukraine on a tank .. ...
          1. Rakti-kali
            Rakti-kali 26 November 2013 08: 00
            0
            Quote: svp67
            why I have always been a supporter of the APU on the tank ...

            So I am also a supporter of the APU! How many problems she could solve!
    2. Aleks tv
      Aleks tv 25 November 2013 15: 34
      +7
      Quote: Rakti-Kali
      in the Urals in 1973, at an ambient temperature of -36 ° С after long-term freezing of T-72 tanks for 43 h, the average duration of a power plant’s warm-up was 14 min,

      Hmm ...
      Have you tried to heat B-46-6 or B-84 at -36?
      And not only dvigl ...

      I tried. Told already, I can once again tell in detail. It is possible, but for a long time, difficult and difficult.
      The regular procedure (not emergency) takes much longer.
      In this respect, the T-80 with a gas turbine engine wins in PERFORMANCE at times. ("exploitation" is the daily obscene labor of tankers)
      1. sapran
        sapran 25 November 2013 15: 41
        +4
        You're right. I would also advise you that a person who is so dashing about the severity and deprivation of launching the T-80 in comparison with the T-72 cited reports on the tests of the Soviet model for the years when the T-80 modifications were adopted, there is a justification and calculations for all modes. And the Fairy Tales that were composed under the dictation of UVZ when it was necessary to merge OMSK with their proposals for a new car and modification of the T-80 park, frankly, there is no desire to believe. Here the winner was not the strongest, but the "money" tank won ...
      2. svp67
        25 November 2013 18: 39
        +6
        Quote: Aleks tv
        Aleks tv

        Lesh also has the practice of removing tanks and other equipment from storage at -30, and concluded that in this respect it is always better to have a T80 "at hand", and preferably more than one. Here, at least for such an operation:
        The task is to quickly remove from storage and prepare for movement diesel "Urals", standing in a covered box, without heating.
        Actions - while the selected people, led by a couple of officers, are preparing the cars for launch and getting everything they need, I am adjusting a pair of T80s to boxing. I bring them to the hood of the "Ural" on the ZX, somewhere at a distance of 1,5-2 meters, it is impossible to get closer, otherwise all the rubber will burn out and we stretch the tarpaulin from above between the tank and the cabin. No more than 10 minutes, work on "low gas" and the Urals starts up almost immediately ... And so the whole group.
        Our opponent somehow misses that the heater also needs batteries, but they may not be as powerful, but they are needed ... Otherwise, you cannot start a cold diesel engine ...
        1. Rakti-kali
          Rakti-kali 26 November 2013 08: 04
          0
          Quote: svp67
          Lesh also has the practice of removing tanks and other equipment from storage at -30, and concluded that in this respect it is always better to have a T80 "at hand", and preferably more than one. Here, at least for such an operation:

          It's good that savvy allows you to use the tank as a heat gun, but this dubious merit is a continuation of the shortcomings of the gas turbine engine.
      3. Rakti-kali
        Rakti-kali 25 November 2013 19: 38
        0
        Quote: Aleks tv
        It is possible, but for a long time, difficult and difficult.

        And I’m not saying that it’s easy, but the readiness to move in this case, the T-72 comes a little earlier than the T-80. And if the seventy-two failed to start normally, then with the help of "dancing with a tambourine" you can make a second attempt and save a little time, if the eighty has not started the whole cycle has to be repeated again.
        1. Alekseev
          Alekseev 25 November 2013 20: 22
          +3
          You are all correctly citing the article "answer to opponents".
          "But everything has already been stolen before us!" yes - that is, all disputes about the gas turbine engine and diesel engine have been carried out. The conclusion is clear, at least according to trends in the global tank engine industry.
          But the T-80U tank, in spite of its shortcomings (the main fuel consumption and the high cost of a gas turbine engine), also has many advantages, high combat qualities, which completely allow it to be in service in the RA at the present time. Replace it in droves so far nothing and nothing.
          1. Aleks tv
            Aleks tv 25 November 2013 22: 23
            +4
            Quote: Alekseev
            But the T-80U tank, in spite of its shortcomings (the main fuel consumption and the high cost of a gas turbine engine), has many advantages,

            Yeah, the namesake.
            yes
            - I do not know a single diesel engineer who does not think without respect for the gas turbine engine.
            - I do not know any T-80U driver, dreaming of a diesel engine.


            The level of daily "fucking" when servicing and licking is fundamentally different.

            Now, if on Armata there were TWO configurations in dvigla ... depending on the theater.
            Eheh, the dreamer ... Although not so expensive and with the maximum unification of everything except the motor ...
            We are losing such invaluable experience.
          2. Rakti-kali
            Rakti-kali 26 November 2013 08: 08
            0
            Quote: Alekseev
            But the T-80U tank, in spite of its shortcomings (the main fuel consumption and the high cost of a gas turbine engine), also has many advantages, high combat qualities, which completely allow it to be in service in the RA at the present time.

            I don’t dispute that the T-80 has a lot of advantages (well, at least the LMS superior to what is on the T-72B), but I don’t forget about the shortcomings.
        2. Aleks tv
          Aleks tv 25 November 2013 21: 44
          0
          Quote: Rakti-Kali
          But I’m not saying that it’s simple, only the willingness to move in the case under consideration in the T-72 comes somewhat earlier than in the T-80.

          Quote: Rakti-Kali
          at an ambient temperature of -36 ° С after long-term freezing of the T-72 tanks for 43 h, the average duration of the heating of the power plant was 14 min,

          The main launch of the T-72B is of course air.
          A) But without a battery in any way:
          -In the heater: Supercharger electric pump, glow plug, fuel heating plug.
          - Power supply to the BTSN and MZN.
          B) For some reason everyone forgets about the coolant .... 90liters for each car to be dragged at each start and to merge at "night" of the car - fun full pants. “Non-freezing” are slightly in short supply, that “40”, that “65” ... And plain water should be heated to avoid traffic jams. And if during the discharge the tank will be inclined forward or to the starboard side - the scribe is provided
          AT) Heater operating time at -36 is approximately 20-25 min.

          So consider.
          T-80 is differently faster and easier to start, if not cool (I do not take into account the emergency system).
          But we, on T-72B, nevertheless: "for a long time, tedious and not easy." You have to sulk more.
          1. Alekseev
            Alekseev 26 November 2013 16: 18
            0
            Quote: Aleks tv
            T-80 is differently faster and easier to get, if you do not twist

            I’ll drive a little over 80. wink Well, in the winter, in the cold, the gas turbine engine is faster to launch. And in the summer, at, say +10?
            A minute or so the launch program is working, I forgot how much exactly. A diesel engine will start under these conditions almost instantly.
            Yes, the situation does not always require turning off the main engine, then starting again, but ...
            I recall a slightly different question: I could not start it, I could not drown it. yes We came to the reserve reconnaissance area and I am on t-64. The BMPs went into the trenches and drowned out the engines, the 64-bit heated up, it’s hot, naturally I’m not dying, the tank is not new, and the temperature doesn’t drop quickly!
            Here the chief of reconnaissance of a group of troops should set tasks, and my "kerosene" whistle and roars with might and main. I was run over like a fool, a saboteur of military disguise, stupid, not attentive "hooligan" military discipline:
            There was a team off the beaten path! Don't you get it !!
            I explain: they say such a tank ..., it’s motor and turbine like that. Don’t .. wilderness immediately! wassat
            After clarification, there were also expressions about the b ... th tank and its engine, which, only partially, of course, was true ...
  7. tchoni
    tchoni 25 November 2013 13: 52
    +2
    The article is interesting. Thanks to the author. What is called after the articles on the modernized T-72B3.
    Based on these articles, there was some opinion (or conjecture) regarding the direction of modernization of our aircraft:
    Before the advent of Armata, the structure and fleet of tank troops will be approximately as follows:
    500-600 T-90 for local wars.
    And 2-3 thousand T-72s of various modifications "just in case."
    In this vein, the direction of modernization of the T-72B3 (a fire variant in case of a conflict of medium and (do not bring and did not descend) high intensity) becomes clear
    And a small number of T-90s planned for release (for conflicts such as Chechen or Georgian, and this number is excessive).
    1. EvilLion
      EvilLion 25 November 2013 16: 59
      +2
      The USA used EMNIP 1100 Abrams in Iraq, and maybe more, when the report was being written, the war was still going on, so I would not recommend counting on several hundred vehicles, or they can be used up rather quickly. Not necessarily burned, but if the tank has gone for a long repair, then it already needs to be changed.
      1. tchoni
        tchoni 26 November 2013 10: 59
        0
        Maybe you are right. But, the war in Iraq is a conflict of moderate intensity.
        As far as I can imagine (judging again by the program of modernization of the tank fleet), the country's political leadership considers this kind of conflict unlikely.
        And about 1100 abrash - honestly not sure. In my opinion this is the total number of US tanks in Iraq. And there is also the M-60 Marine Corps.
  8. tchoni
    tchoni 25 November 2013 13: 52
    0
    The article is interesting. Thanks to the author. What is called after the articles on the modernized T-72B3.
    Based on these articles, there was some opinion (or conjecture) regarding the direction of modernization of our aircraft:
    Before the advent of Armata, the structure and fleet of tank troops will be approximately as follows:
    500-600 T-90 for local wars.
    And 2-3 thousand T-72s of various modifications "just in case."
    In this vein, the direction of modernization of the T-72B3 (a fire variant in case of a conflict of medium and (do not bring and did not descend) high intensity) becomes clear
    And a small number of T-90s planned for release (for conflicts such as Chechen or Georgian, and this number is excessive).
  9. Cruorvult
    Cruorvult 25 November 2013 14: 12
    0
    UVZ seemed to be trying to explain to the Armed Forces that upgrading junk is almost like cutting a new tank, but alas. Armata was already promised in the 15th at the parade, so is there any special reason to cut 90am, although it is not clear here, on one side the aircraft are not very interested in 90ms, on the other hand they write that AM should still appear. A 72b3 and so it is clear to everyone that UG.
    1. sapran
      sapran 25 November 2013 15: 47
      0
      Honestly hand on heart they lie godlessly. It’s just the manufacture of car kits for MO repair plants and the production of a tank with 0 for India with a different amount of 000.
      Everything as in the union for the modernization of ranks and highest awards was given only to units, but for a new model of weapons and equipment, praise and honor (hereinafter).
    2. EvilLion
      EvilLion 25 November 2013 17: 01
      -1
      UVZ here is absolutely right, cut everything with handles, put the same electronics in, the savings if there is a penny.
  10. sapran
    sapran 25 November 2013 14: 26
    +1
    Good article.
    Moscow region law that relies on the modernization of the T-72B
    1. Not as expensive as buying a new one.
    2. Does not distract the parent company from strategic tasks, along the way, removers of the Moscow Region work in various regions, which are jobs and income to the local budget of the region.
    3. The machine as the very thing that the Russian army needs (recruits manage to master it until the moment of its "murder" T-72 is hefty "fool-proof")
    4. His in kind "... two cars" joke touched a large on ready-made samples in the case of deployment and mobilization in "theory" it should be enough)
    5. Having a decent "tractor" it is possible to improve the Main Armament Complex to "impropriety".
    With regards to the T-80B (U, UD), educate experts on which enterprise in Russia produces tank gas turbine engines?
    About 6TD I do not ask as I know.
  11. Aleks tv
    Aleks tv 25 November 2013 16: 12
    +3
    I emphasize once again that the version of modernization of T-80 in the article is painted very clearly and without "water".
    hi
    And it would not cost so much. Such additional equipment can be carried out during the overhaul of the T-80.

    Sergey, this item was of interest:
    - a new installation of the “paired” machine gun, which would allow firing from it at the moment when the gun is at the loading angle;

    There really is such a problem, in the North Caucasus the Czechs were WAITING for a regular tank shot and crawled out from all angles with the “sevens” precisely when the barrel went to the loading line.
    I even had to instruct the covering infantry about the opening of firing (not even aiming) at all the “slots” around the tank in order to gain time for loading the guns until the tank had the opportunity to use turret weapons (ZPU didn’t count)
    If there was no infantry, then the tanks tried to fire ... salvo or sequentially, one after another.

    How do you think you need to change the "installation" of the coaxial machine gun?
    1. bask
      bask 25 November 2013 17: 42
      +5
      Hi Lyos. I agree the article is interesting and with conclusions and not only the author agrees.
      Quote: cth; fyn
      UVZ time (MAT) to the fullest, put 10 effective managers behind the betrayal of the motherland and put the company tough

      As long as there is a monopoly on R&D and release of MBT only at UVZ, nothing will change.
      And kutsii ,,, modernization ,,, will give out.
      Quote: Aleks tv
      How do you think you need to change the "installation" of the coaxial machine gun?

      I think we need first of all (REPEAT) BMT-T, with the triple module.
      In the first line, together with MBT.
      1. Aleks tv
        Aleks tv 25 November 2013 23: 20
        +1
        Quote: bask
        BMT-T, with the triad module.

        Beauty ...
        Podshamanit it under the current realities - ask the pepper, only a fur coat will be wrapped.

        Greetings, Andrew.
    2. svp67
      25 November 2013 18: 49
      +4
      Quote: Aleks tv
      How do you think you need to change the "installation" of the coaxial machine gun?

      Not very difficult. The sight, however, "mismatches" with the gun at the time of loading, but the machine gun must be made on a "bed" which will be rigidly fixed with the help of electromagnetic stoppers. The "Kharkovites" were practicing this design on the T80UD back in the late 80s, then they said it was EXPENSIVE. But isn't the life of a soldier cheaper? And how many tanks were there in the USSR, and how many of them does Russia need now? You can be more "careful" ...
      1. Alekseev
        Alekseev 25 November 2013 20: 34
        +2
        Quote: svp67
        but the machine gun must be made on a "bed" which will be rigidly fixed with the help of electro-magnetic stoppers.

        Well, in my opinion, in the 21st century it would be possible to put another small for a coaxial machine gun and a bed on the trunnions next to the CTB hydraulic cylinder of the cannon, complicates the design somewhat, of course, but while the cannon is at the loading angle - "urine" enemies from a machine gun, and even NSVT (KPVT, remember the veteran T-10) instead of PKT. A little more and we will come to Armat! laughing
        1. svp67
          25 November 2013 20: 40
          +2
          Quote: Alekseev
          Well, in my opinion, in the 21st century it could be put next to the STV hydraulic cylinder

          There are many solutions, it is just necessary that this condition be in the technical task ...
          Today I looked at the pictures of our "Chuguevsky polygon" - grass, the tracks of the landfill are not visible ... It's a shame to tears.
        2. Bad_gr
          Bad_gr 25 November 2013 21: 55
          0
          Quote: Alekseev
          Well, in my opinion, in the 21st century it would be possible to put another small for a coaxial machine gun and a bed on the trunnions next to the CTB hydraulic cylinder of the cannon, complicates the design somewhat, of course, but while the cannon is at the loading angle - "urine" enemies from a machine gun, and even NSVT (KPVT, remember the veteran T-10) instead of PKT. A little more and we will come to Armat! laughing

          There was no information about Armata’s additional weapons, but at object 195 it was a 30mm 2A42 caliber gun, which had no round fire, but could rotate in fairly wide aisles with respect to the tank gun (152mm caliber).
      2. Aleks tv
        Aleks tv 25 November 2013 21: 48
        0
        Quote: svp67
        The sight, however, "mismatches" with the gun at the time of loading, but the machine gun must be done on the "bed"

        Damn, exactly, I forgot about controlling the "mirror" on the sight ...
        Yes, the "bed" for the machine gun should be different.

        The idea is needed.
        It is a pity that the Kharkovites did not complete such a system, to be honest, I did not hear about it, or flew by ears.
  12. cth; fyn
    cth; fyn 25 November 2013 16: 47
    +3
    From all the articles I read on the topic of modernization and the construction of new tanks, about the stagnation of tank thought, I concluded that it was time for UVZ (MAT) to land in full, plant 10 effective managers for the betrayal of the motherland and to set strict conditions for the enterprise: do we want this, that, and that, for such a price, no? please: another 10 people went to the stage, etc.
  13. vimati
    vimati 25 November 2013 17: 45
    +4
    Already a Hedgehog (drunk) it is clear that we must go to the modular tower! Go on a two-eyed sight! With two eyes, a person sees better; a drunken Hedgehog knows about it! If the right fails in battle, what should I do? Optical fiber allows you to put the EXIT of the sight anywhere and conveniently! Though Grandma's in the closet! And on a machine gun a fiber optic sight ...
  14. Starik63
    Starik63 25 November 2013 18: 35
    0
    Gentlemen, tankers! Aviation all over the world is now following the path of preserving the airplane with the replacement of avionics systems (electronic control systems for vehicles and weapons) and the weapons themselves, which, according to the author of the article (not literally, but in meaning) is the most correct and applicable to BTT. I completely agree! This is the most efficient and least costly way. But only if the TANKIST, and not the headquarters dummy-dropout who has served all his life in the ARBAT military district, will be asked: - “What do you dislike about the car, what is badly done, what needs to be improved or changed? tell me - and we (the designer, the industry) will try to fix the flaws! " Attention, the question: "Who and when the last time saw our designers or representatives of factories in the park, at the training ground, or (which is generally from the field of little science fiction) in the car during exercises with regular shooting?" Answer, very interesting.
    1. Bad_gr
      Bad_gr 25 November 2013 22: 05
      +2
      Quote: Starik63
      .... Just tell me - and we (the designer, the industry) will try to fix the flaws !! ....... "
      What a designer can do, we see in the T-90ms, and before that in objects that did not go into production because of the high cost.
      And the Ministry of Defense for the Army chose the modernization of the old tank, which is comparable simply to repair.
      The question is, if the Ministry of Defense for the Army prefers to choose what is cheaper, what does the designer have to do with it?
      1. Aleks tv
        Aleks tv 25 November 2013 22: 29
        +1
        Quote: Bad_gr
        The question is, if the Ministry of Defense for the Army prefers to choose what is cheaper, what does the designer have to do with it?

        Right, Vladimir.
        Welcome.

        .developer puts the ashtray not where to the driver it will be convenient to use it, but wherever it indicates customer....
        1. Bad_gr
          Bad_gr 25 November 2013 23: 14
          0
          Quote: Aleks tv
          Vladimir.
          Welcome.

          Alex, good evening!
          He answered the letter.
      2. Starik63
        Starik63 26 November 2013 00: 15
        +1
        Despite the fact that at the moment independently, without looking or consulting each other (then bish - without interacting), absolutely autonomously in the sky above the "track" that is fucking with iron, three forces soar: 1st - Smart designer, 2nd - Economical manufacturer and 3rd - Wise Minister. DO NOT DISTINCT THEM !! This is one and the same three-headed Serpent (in the present state and at the moment). Yes, I don’t argue - there are designers who know their job and root for it. But I ask you to take my word for it, I saw more than one defense design bureau, where 30-40 people are sitting, and at the exit for a year of operation of this herd - "Modernization of the valve of the indicator lamp for indicating the operation of the windshield wiper at night"! And for this - PRIZE and LITERATURE. And the fact that this light bulb did not bite into anyone anywhere - but on a drum !!. Loot on your pocket, warm and cozy, the rest (that is, our "truck" suffering from low-temperature start-up) - do not care (there is none in the universe of the designer)!
        Or they can very, very much! If there is interest, yes the sailor Zheleznyak stands behind with a Mauser, and clicks the shutter — miracles work, look at aviation and the Strategic Missile Forces.
        And our economical tank builder is worth something! He will teach you from the terms of reference for a car (unit, component, complex, system, etc.) and starts to run on higher levels: - "You cut without a knife, It's not technologically advanced for me, The equipment is worn out! (Read - Yes, damn it, when I have a house in Finland I’ll finish building the yacht, I promised my wife half a year ago, the children drive the infamous Toyota Rav4!). And he starts begging - reduce the requirements, change the material, give the opportunity to solve the layout issue on your own, let me change the complete set! And for a small bribe (and I think that Not at all for a small amount) and the covers of optical guidance devices on bolts appear. I repeat - there are quite a few manufacturers who care not for their pocket, but for the defense business. There are! But their fraction is small in the face of others, whose name is LEGION !!! again Zheleznyak looms in the corridors of the plant. And again at the exit is what the platoon commander needs to change the rollers in the field! Just some kind of magic!
        Now - the average dragon's head, the most vile and main, placed above the other heads - the MO apparatus. There are not many decent and selfless people there, nurtured, raised and brought up "invincible and legendary" (these words - from the heart, I knew many, I know many. I declare responsibly - there are honest and healthy forces in the MO !!!) BUT! Alas and ah! It's always "but" a nasty picture and spoils the statistics !! After all, who, if not the Ministry of Defense, is inherently obliged to bring together the customer (his uterine child!), A smart designer and an economical manufacturer! Reduce, and ask in all severity: - "I see that in the field of military" truck "- a worthy knight with materiel is suffering, the task of the military is to be solved, but he should not be bothered! By what such an evil will? malicious intent? Or without intent ... in the sense of generally meaningless? " Fairy tale. But in reality, all the work of the Ministry of Defense comes down ONLY to COLLECTION OF MATERIALS FOR REPORTS TO THE GOVERNMENT ... well, and to someone else. For REAL work with design bureaus and factories, there is simply no effort, no means, no APPROPRIATE TRAINED PERSONNEL! Yes, and such a task was posed as something dull, in general, vague. And "the corruption component ... is playing pranks, so to speak !!
        So it turns out that a swan is a pike with cancer. And you say "where?"
  15. gallville
    gallville 25 November 2013 19: 48
    +7
    Quote: Starik63
    From all the articles I read on the topic of modernization and the construction of new tanks, about the stagnation of tank thought, I concluded that UVZ is time (MAT) in full

    Already for the armored cap on the bolts that stuck to the Pine under the article, it would cost both those who allocated money and those who did.
    And for the ergonomics of the gunner would have been confiscated.
  16. Volkhov
    Volkhov 26 November 2013 00: 18
    0
    A strange article - the T-80 is really better than the T-72 and that is why it must be removed from service and sent to Syria to fight Assad T-72. T-55 and T-62 have already left for Libya and Syria, but experienced SAA tankers quickly knock them out, like the T-72 of the older types, and the T-80 is faster and stronger, so they will be sent there. In addition, the tanks of the old types of CAA captures and restores, and to the T-80 they do not have spare parts.
    The very logic of the article "on the defense of Russia by tanks" is completely outdated, the army has long been an expeditionary and defends another homeland, and it will still not work to fight off the DPRK in the Far East, it is logical to have outdated tanks there as cover.
  17. Tsar Simeon
    Tsar Simeon 26 November 2013 04: 36
    +1
    A good article, unfortunately Russian tank building, which has always been considered the standard, is now at an impasse. At that time, the best tank in the world was Leo 2A7.
    1. Rakti-kali
      Rakti-kali 26 November 2013 08: 16
      0
      Quote: Tsar Simeon
      At that time, the best tank in the world Leo 2A7.

      And the better?
      1. svp67
        26 November 2013 10: 11
        0
        Quote: Rakti-Kali
        And the better?

        Unfortunately you yourself know the answer ...
    2. svp67
      26 November 2013 10: 13
      0
      Quote: Tsar Simeon
      now be at a standstill

      The dead end is ARTIFICIAL. And in order for it to turn into a "new highway" of everything, one must show will ...
  18. Crang
    Crang 27 November 2013 21: 18
    +1
    Author - why are you comparing the sights of the modernized T-64B and T-80BV tanks with the sight of a conventional T-72 or T-72A? Why don't you compare them with the T-72B, which, in addition to the "ballistic corrector", also has a TBV? It's not fair.
    1. svp67
      27 November 2013 23: 53
      0
      Quote: Krang
      TBV? It’s not fair.

      But the sight is the same and the process of its use is not much easier ...
      And to be honest, the T72B dropped in the series at the moment when the T64B and T80B were replaced by the T80UD and T80U, respectively. Will we compare them with the T72B? Especially the convenience of using KUV ...
      1. Alex 241
        Alex 241 28 November 2013 00: 01
        0
        Seryozha, hi, since you are here, the amateur’s question is: Is the sight (data rangefinder) too heavily overloaded with the scope and can make an external base optical rangefinder in aviation sights?
        1. svp67
          28 November 2013 00: 03
          0
          Goodnight. Alex, a question about everyone or about a specific sight?
          1. Alex 241
            Alex 241 28 November 2013 00: 06
            +2
            Seryozha, why not unify everything?
            1. svp67
              28 November 2013 00: 28
              +1
              Quote: Alex 241
              Seryozha, why not unify everything?
              in the USSR they cared too much about the "succession" that the mobilized could quickly master the new technology, which is why they did not abandon the levers, although it was already possible to install the steering wheel on the T80 with a gas turbine engine, and even now it would be time for him or the "joystick" to put fur. water. So it is with the sight. TPD-1K with its scale resembles the sights of T55 and T62 ... With this article and I want to say that now it is NECESSARY that during modernization all tanks in the fighting compartment should be COMPLETELY UNIFIED, in this case with the T90MS, since it is today the best that we already have from the production ... And this will give us a little "respite" until the troops are fully equipped with "Armata" ...
        2. svp67
          28 November 2013 00: 16
          +1
          Alex, the situation in the tank is a little different, it is very dark there and information about the external situation was previously received through various optical devices, the main one for the no. there was a sight. Range data is needed, in particular, to control the fidelity of the initial data for firing. The fact is that the laser beam can be reflected from various obstacles, for example, from a bush at half the distance to the target, and in order to avoid or exclude this, there are various "modes" on the PDPS, which are not. can choose.
          Well, but such a "cabin" I think it may well be embodied with an electronic system, but here "THOUGHTS" should be tried. But also to do so that at any moment when all this "newfangled x .... b" will fail, which may well be, no. could use the "optics" well, not through the barrel to aim laughing
          1. Alex 241
            Alex 241 28 November 2013 00: 26
            +1
            Thank you Serezha, I didn’t take into account the nuances, ran ahead of the engine. And in the photo there is an aiming mobile mark, the algorithm is this: knowing the geometrical parameters of the target, the base is entered, then the target is framed by the range input handle, and the distance is entered into the computer, as a result of which the corrections are worked out by the aim mark .
      2. Crang
        Crang 28 November 2013 08: 58
        0
        So it is true, but if the T-80BV is older than the T-72B by only a couple of years, then the T-72A is a dozen more than the T-80BV .... So your assumptions, although not fundamentally wrong, show the obvious bias of your thinking and, accordingly, of your article. You do not love the Lizard.
        PS This T-80BV was replaced by the T-80U and its cheaper model T-80UD. The T-64BV was replaced by the T-64BM, and then it sunk into oblivion, moving to Ukraine.
        1. svp67
          28 November 2013 14: 25
          +1
          Quote: Krang
          So then it is, but if the T-80BV is older than the T-72B by only a couple of years, then the T-72A is a dozen more than the T-80BV ....

          Date of adoption:
          T72A - 1973, T64B - 1976
          T80B - 1978
          T80U - 1984
          T72B- 1985; T80UD - 1985
          You do not see patterns?
          Quote: Krang
          This T-80BV was replaced by a T-80U and its cheaper model T-80UD.

          one refinement T80UD replaced on the conveyor T64B ...
          Quote: Krang
          The T-64BV was replaced by the T-64BM, and then it sunk into oblivion, moving to Ukraine.
          The T64BM is actually a "Ukrainian" tank. And they did what I propose to do with us - they unified the BO with the T80UD, but I propose to go further by creating tanks with the SAME BO, but on various Russian-made tracked chassis ... from Russian components.
          Quote: Krang
          You do not love the Lizard.
          If in the sense of "dinosaur", "ancient and ossified", then NO, but I see that a completely modern tank can be made from the "Lizard", which is quite capable of changing the balance of forces on the battlefield in our favor and I am "FOR" that's it this ...
          And with this approach, it’s better to produce the T55 - cheap, practical and a lot ...
  19. Crang
    Crang 28 November 2013 14: 51
    0
    Quote: svp67
    If in the sense of "dinosaur", "ancient and ossified", then NO, but I see that a completely modern tank can be made from the "Lizard", which is quite capable of changing the balance of forces on the battlefield in our favor and I am "FOR" that's it this ...

    So they did it. Moreover, in two versions. The first T-90A - agree on cooler than any production model of the T-80. Well, the T-72B3 is cheaper in the appendage. The tank is also better than the T-80U. He's better on his own. For iron. Replacing the sights is not that difficult. And why change the T-72B control system to the already outdated 1A33 control system from the T-80BV? It is necessary to immediately install a normal 1A45T "Irtysh" from the T-90A or "Kalina" from the T-90MS. Che to waste time on trifles? The only thing that would be nice to add to the T-72/90 from the T-80 series is a powerful GTE + automatic transmission. And on the tower part of the T-72, and so it is better.
    1. svp67
      28 November 2013 23: 17
      0
      Quote: Krang
      The first T-90A - agree steeper than any serial model of the T-80.

      No, not cooler than the T80U ...
      Quote: Krang
      Well, the T-72B3 in the appendage is cheaper.

      And about this "inadequacy" let's better not, I DO NOT WANT TO BE upset ...
      Quote: Krang
      And on the tower part of the T-72, and so is better.

      NOT BETTER - SIGHT TPD-1K, "night light", "commander's device" - outright sucks, radio stations need to be replaced
      Quote: Krang
      And why change the T-72B control system to the already obsolete 1A33 control system from the T-80BV?
      So do not change, why put outdated, install all the newest, with T90MS
  20. Crang
    Crang 29 November 2013 10: 05
    0
    Quote: svp67
    No, not cooler than the T80U ...

    I would like to know why? After all, the T-90A 2006g.v. stupidly much newer than the T-80U and has electronics of a different generation. I personally know what exactly the T-90A is cooler, and you say that it is not cooler. Verbal statements.
    Quote: svp67
    And about this "inadequacy" let's better not, I DO NOT WANT TO BE upset ...

    And what is upset then? Normal tank. Electronics in it is almost at the level of T-90A. Iron is also pumped.
    Quote: svp67
    NOT BETTER - SIGHT TPD-1K, "night light", "commander's device" - outright sucks, radio stations need to be replaced

    You intentionally didn’t understand me? Again:
    Quote: Krang
    . Well, the T-72B3 in the appendage is cheaper. The tank is also better than the T-80U. He is better on his own. For iron. Replacing sights is not so difficult.

    That is, the T-72B is better than the T-80U in terms of iron. Mechanics. And you again start talking about sights and walkie-talkies. It is not difficult to exchange them for others, which was done. Or are the "night lights" cool in the T-80BV / T-64BV? The same... Or is the T-80BV "commander's device" the height of perfection? Oh yes, TKN-3 for T-72B sucks, BUT TKN-3V for T-80BV well, it's finally cool !!!! Another planet aha.
  21. igorka357
    igorka357 10 February 2015 03: 39
    0
    Why this repost of technical documentation?