T-55AM. New version of the modernization of obsolete tanks

172
The T-55 medium tank was one of the most massive vehicles of its class and was able to become the main type of armored vehicles in the armies of several dozen countries. Even half a century after the start of production Tanks T-55 remain in service with many armies and are unlikely to be completely decommissioned in the foreseeable future. Nevertheless, the T-55 tanks have long been outdated both morally and physically, which is why they need to be replaced. Not all countries operating the equipment of this model can afford modern armored vehicles with high characteristics due to their equally high cost. Therefore, they may be interested in various projects involving the repair and modernization of existing equipment. One of the options for updating T-55 tanks with a marked increase in performance is offered by the Omsk Design Bureau of Transport Engineering, which is part of the Uralvagonzavod Corporation.

T-55AM. New version of the modernization of obsolete tanks


The T-55AM project involves the overhaul of production tanks and the installation of a large number of new equipment. Due to this, it is claimed that the upgraded tank improves all the basic parameters: firepower, level of protection, mobility and command control.

It should be noted that the proposed modernization project for the T-55 vehicles proposed by Uralvagonzavod has almost nothing to do with the T-55AM tank developed in the early eighties. These two projects are similar to each other in their approach to modernization, namely the replacement of obsolete equipment components with new ones and some measures aimed at increasing the security and firepower of the tank. Nevertheless, the projects differ in the equipment used in the modernization.

To simplify the conversion of serial equipment, the T-55AM project involves the use of various additional equipment and systems, for the installation of which it is not necessary to make serious adjustments to the design of the machine. For example, for a significant increase in the level of protection, it is proposed to use additional booking modules installed on the tank’s native homogeneous armor. The forehead of the body is proposed to additionally protect several removable blocks of dynamic protection. From such blocks, the wedge-shaped protection of the forehead and the cheekbones of the tower should be assembled. The front part of the body receives additional protection with a total weight of about 800 kg, consisting of 152 elements of the 4 – 22 “Contact-5” system. The tower has support structures and 81 element 4С22 with a total weight of about 920 kg.

For additional protection of the case, it is proposed to use removable rubber side screens with mounted dynamic protection units. Each such screen weighs more than 460 kg and carries 48 elements of the “Contact-5” system. It is alleged that when firing using cumulative ammunition at an encounter angle of up to 20 °, the level of protection of the hull sides covered with new screens increases about two times compared to the base armor of the T-55 tank.



The use of additional protection modules and other new equipment increases the weight of the upgraded tank. According to official data, the combat weight of the updated tank reaches 40 tons. To maintain the mobility of the machine at an acceptable level, the project provided for an update of the power plant.

In the stern of the T-55AM tank, a 12-cylinder four-stroke diesel engine B-46-5MS is installed with a turbocharging power of 690 hp. In addition, a cyclone unit and an air purifier cassette unit must be installed in the engine compartment. The basic version of the T-55 tank was equipped with a 580-powerful B-55 engine, due to which the replacement of the power plant makes it possible to keep the specific power of the vehicle at the same level.

To improve maneuverability and smoothness, the upgraded T-55AM tank receives the undercarriage of an updated design. The new project provides for the use of aft drive wheel with new crowns and a reinforced mount. Also, the guide wheel disc and the bearing unit of the first track roller are reinforced. It is offered to equip basic skating rinks with updated hydraulic shock absorbers with increased energy intensity and torsions of a different steel grade. Thanks to these innovations, the dynamic course of the road wheels increases to 186 mm, which should have a positive effect on the smoothness of the course and, as a result, on the accuracy of shooting in motion. An additional factor affecting the permeability was a new caterpillar with a rubber-metal joint, which reduces the ground pressure to 0,76 kg / sq. cm.



The use of the updated power plant and chassis allows you to keep the characteristics of the T-55AM tank at the required level. The speed of the car on the highway reaches 50 km / h, the power reserve with additional tank-barrels is 610 km. The tank can overcome 32-degree rise, move with roll to 30 °, climb a wall 0,8 m high and cross a moat 2,7 m wide. Without preparation, the machine can move along a ford to depth of 1,4 m. increases to 5 m.

In accordance with the project T-55AM main weapons The upgraded tank is an X-NUMX-mm rifled gun, the D-100T10C, using unitary ammunition. In the course of modernization, the gun receives a three-section thermoprotective jacket covering the barrel pipe from the gun mask to the ejector. To balance the barrel with the casing on the fence of the breech of the gun it is proposed to install relatively compact counterweights of the required mass. The use of a casing leads to a marked increase in shooting accuracy. It is argued that the spread in the corners of the projectile departure angle decreases by 2-2 times, technical dispersion is reduced by 3-2 times. As a result, the ammunition consumption for hitting the target is reduced by 4%.

Another method to increase the firepower of a tank is to use new ammunition. In the ammunition D-10Т2С is proposed to include the high-explosive fragmentation shell OFNNXX. This ammunition is manufactured using a new technology, which increases the accuracy of the production of shells and eliminates the need to use other weight marks besides zero (“H”). All this should simplify the use of projectiles, reduce the time of preparation for the shot, as well as improve the accuracy of shooting. A projectile weighing 70 kg carries an 13,28 kg explosive. With an initial speed of 2,24 m / s, the projectile is able to fly to a distance of 960 km. When undermining the shell of the projectile is broken into 13 splinters that hit targets on an area larger than 3393 square. m



For effective destruction of armored vehicles and enemy fortifications at distances to 4 km, the T-55AM tank will be able to use the 3UBK10-1 shot with the 9М117М guided missile. The launch of a guided missile should be made through the barrel of the gun. To control the rocket is offered a special laser system. A missile is aimed at a target in a semi-automatic mode: the gunner must hold the laser beam on the target, and the rocket is independently held in the beam. The cumulative warhead of the 9М117М rocket can penetrate up to 550 mm of homogeneous armor.

As an anti-aircraft weapon, the T-55AM tank receives an installation with the Kord heavy machine gun. The machine gun mount is mounted above the left hatch of the turret and provides circular guidance horizontally. For aiming the machine gun it is proposed to use the collimator sight K10-T.

On the stern of the turret, 8B “Tucha” smoke grenade launchers are installed. Remote control grenade launchers located on the workplace of the tank commander. Grenades can be fired one by one or in one gulp.

The basis of the fire control system of a modernized tank is the Om sighting and observation complex. It includes several multi-channel sights with increased magnification and field of view. It is argued that the use of the “Om” complex can significantly reduce the time required to search for targets, increase the accuracy of shooting and reduce the consumption of ammunition by almost a third.

To monitor the environment, the T-55AM tank commander should use the TKN-1CM device installed in the commander's turret. This device is built on a two-channel scheme and allows you to monitor day and night. When using a night vision channel, observation of objects at a distance greater than 600 m is provided. An interference-free operation mode is provided for monitoring the situation when light interference occurs.



Two aiming instruments must be installed at the gunner’s workplace: the 1P3-7D periscopic sight and the 1PN-96МТ thermal imager. The first is equipped with a built-in laser range finder and a ballistic computer and provides detection of enemy tanks (in side view) at distances up to 10 km. The range finder 1P3-7D is capable of measuring distances at distances up to 8 km. The 1PN-96МТ sight is also periscopic, but it is equipped with a thermal imaging channel. In the passive mode of operation, this device allows you to notice a “tank” type target (side view) at a distance of 3 km. Both sights automatically calculate corrections and shift the aiming mark depending on the distance to the target and other conditions.

At the workplace of the T-55AM tank mechanic, it is proposed to install a TBC-3 periscope observation device. The device has day and night channels providing tank driving at any time of the day. The night channel of the TVK-3 device allows you to monitor the situation at a distance of up to 250 m and does not need an additional illuminator. An important feature of the device TVK-3 is the possibility of driving a tank day and night without changing the means of observation.

Communication of the T-55AM tank with other combat vehicles is provided by means of the P-173 radio station installed in the turret. At the request of the customer, the combat vehicle can receive communications equipment using the P-168 digital radio station. New radio stations provide high-quality analog and digital communications, as well as less difficult to operate and maintain.

It is known about the existence of at least one prototype tank, upgraded in accordance with the Omsk project T-55AM. This car was shown at some exhibitions, and also appears in the promotional materials of the corporation "Uralvagonzavod." However, information on orders for the repair and updating of equipment for the new project is not available. Probably, the proposed methods for the modernization of combatant armored vehicles have not yet interested potential customers.











Based on:
http://army-guide.com/
http://kbtm-omsk.ru/
http://computerland-spb.ru/images/pdf_uvz/T55-AM_spreads.pdf
172 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +48
    31 July 2014 09: 10
    Good, cheap upgrade. Nothing more, although no complaints. It is interesting that such an option prevents Contact 5 from being installed on t 72 and t90 during modernization? T72B3 looks just wretched against the background of this option.
    1. +16
      31 July 2014 11: 22
      removed the idea from the language, Dear! After the modernization of the T-72, this one looks much more thoughtful and interesting.
      1. Ignatius
        0
        5 August 2014 17: 22
        the answer is simple: before you are the computer graphics of the new t-55 and the existing new t-72
    2. +8
      31 July 2014 13: 01
      In an interview, the Syrian tankman said that metal hinged screens were torn off during maneuvers in the city, and then rubber-fabric. It's all about fixing these screens.
      1. +1
        2 August 2014 13: 47
        Quote: zulusuluz
        In an interview, the Syrian tankman said that metal hinged screens were torn off during maneuvers in the city, and then rubber-fabric. It's all about fixing these screens.

        On the "centurions", I wonder if the screens were also ripped off all the time?
    3. +16
      31 July 2014 20: 03
      Quote: avdkrd
      Good, cheap upgrade. Nothing extra

      In addition to the superfluous idea to upgrade the 55-ku as the main battle tank.
      Most importantly, the D-10T gun is an anti-tank gun, it is rather weak for this time in this capacity. At least something to do with it, but before D-81 as before Kiev cancer.
      Will a manual transmission digest a more powerful motor?
      Nothing is written about the stabilizer. Already, there has long been no element base for STV T-55 nodes. Yes
      In general, in my personal opinion, it is advisable to make heavy armored personnel carriers, infantry fighting vehicles, infantry fighting vehicles (assault tanks) from the T-55. Those. change weapons for the tasks of these machines. At the same time, it is necessary to modernize the transmission (gearbox, replace PMP with hydraulic), the engine can be deployed along the axis of the machine.
      In general, the veteran has a new life in a new quality.
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. +8
        1 August 2014 02: 08
        Quote: Alekseev
        In addition to the superfluous idea to upgrade the 55-ku as the main battle tank.

        So actually this is a commercial project. In Russia, the t-72 is enough for modernization, and in the world of the t-55 many thousands. A 100mm caliber gun, of course, will be rather weak in a duel situation against Merkava or Leopard, but it is a harsh weapon against an equal enemy and infantry (HE was impressed). Modernization is a way out for countries armed with t 55 and not requiring expensive models. It seems that at the request of the customer it is possible to put a remote machine-gun mount and even change the gun to 125 mm or 120 mm. The issue price is all. And for a third-world theater, it’s quite a car.
        PS I read somewhere that the Mujahideen in Afghanistan have great respect for the surviving 55 tons because of 100 rifled guns. All the same, the smoothbore does not allow shooting at such distances (10km), plus high accuracy, and in mountain conditions, both are in demand.
        1. +6
          1 August 2014 11: 31
          Quote: avdkrd
          with great respect for the surviving t 55 precisely because of 100 rifled guns.

          Yes, this gun is wow! He shot, yes ...
          Accuracy is excellent, it is much easier to charge than say the 115-mm D-68 (the shot is easier).
          Her sister BS-3 is now fighting in the Donbass.
          But, nevertheless, it is basically an anti-tank gun.
          For, as a rule, direct fire.
          However, for the specific conditions of the suppression of illegal armed groups, such a highly protected tank, with a thermal imager, and still not expensive, may even be more in demand than its more modern and advanced counterparts.
          1. +3
            1 August 2014 21: 32
            Someone did not "like" to send 55 against weakly armed formations (troops). laughing
            But c'est la vie is life.
            Old became, however.
            Do not upgrade, the T-90 (T-72, 80, Leopard2, etc.) will not come out of it.
            Although I repeat, the gun, for its time, was good.
    4. 0
      4 October 2014 13: 03
      Pin 5 is an outdated protection.
  2. +8
    31 July 2014 09: 18
    The set of events looks decent, the old man will pull himself up to the level of the T-72. But there is also a fly in the ointment - the price of the issue. How much cheaper would it be to upgrade the T-55 compared to buying a used, upgraded T-72? And also, is it necessary to modernize the plant or the plant will supply "repair kits" for self-installation?
    1. +3
      31 July 2014 10: 44
      Quote: dzvero
      How much cheaper will it be to upgrade the T-55 compared to buying a used upgraded T-72?

      I doubt that such an upgrade on the 55th will be cheaper than upgrading the 72nd.
  3. +7
    31 July 2014 09: 29
    Cool. But the T-55 is too outdated. And why not replace the old cannon with a Rapier cannon - 100 mm smoothbore? Although it is even better to "lift" the T-62 tank.
  4. +3
    31 July 2014 09: 33
    Given that only the tower and the hull remain intact from the old T-55, I believe that the modernization will not be so cheap. In fact, on the old "skeleton" - new "muscles".
  5. +4
    31 July 2014 09: 40
    The idea is interesting, it is a pity if it remains in the project. Roughly speaking, the box is not as outdated as its filling. Of course, this is not the T-90, but why not? Especially if such modernization will not be more expensive than building a new one, as we sometimes do
  6. +7
    31 July 2014 09: 55
    The issue of modernization of the existing T-55 fleet by one or another potential customer is rather economic and depends on: 1. The price of the issue and the financial capabilities of the customer; 2. The size of the fleet of T-55s available to the customer and planned for replacement (modernization); 3. The competitiveness of the Omsk people on the market for such services; 4. Fundamentally possible benefits received by the customer when using this way of solving the problem of improving the BTT fleet, which is in service with the customer's army; 5. General analysis of the above factors, as well as some others that can be taken into account by a potential customer and are significant enough for him.
    "There is no perfect offer, no perfect client, no perfect solution, but there are nuances" ...
    The Omsk project itself looks pretty pretty in my amateurish opinion. Itself had no relation to BTV, but tanks always liked, as well as tank troops ...
    Hello to all colleagues!
    What do you think, who served on the tanks?! ..
  7. Florist
    +5
    31 July 2014 10: 52
    Sensible modernization! There are different countries with different financial capabilities, for many it will be a very advanced tank, which will significantly increase the combat capabilities of the army.
  8. slava11
    -12
    31 July 2014 11: 01
    Cheaper to remelt, and build new ones.
    1. +15
      31 July 2014 12: 01
      Quote: slava11
      Cheaper to remelt, and build new ones.

      But what valiant Israel did not let go, but used both as MBT and, now, as a heavy armored personnel carrier?
      1. slava11
        -9
        31 July 2014 12: 27
        And the article is about how to make T55 armored personnel carriers. No. Article about the revitalization of a corpse That's when they write about the project of alteration in the APC then you will minus me.
        1. padonok.71
          +13
          31 July 2014 13: 14
          I see you as a great tank specialist. Tell us about the "stupid" Russians about such a wonderful Jewish tank as the Tyrant 4/5. How this magnificent product of Jewish engineering was used by your "invincible" Heil HaShiryon. How your tank "geniuses" praised him - Meir Zamir, nicknamed "Tiger", Lieutenant Colonel Kahalani, Zvi Gringold. And also enlighten us dark ones, where these incomparable "destroyers" are now.
          And also tell us whose experts consulted in March 2013 with UVZ engineers about further modernization.
          1. -2
            31 July 2014 14: 05
            Quote: padonok.71
            And also enlighten us dark ones, where these incomparable "destroyers" are now.

            Remelted, sold / donated to the Papuans, converted into TBTRs - not a single "Tyrant" has been in service for decades.

            And also tell us whose experts consulted in March 2013 with UVZ engineers about further modernization.

            Something tells me that you will enlighten us about this. smile
            1. padonok.71
              +10
              31 July 2014 15: 26
              Here she is your Semitic nature, only one touch! The whole kibutz will come running. But this is your genetics, the Arab-Semitic, you can’t get away from this.
              And only you should not blame me for anti-Semitism. I treat lawyers normally. Although to be honest, you people are rotten.
              Regarding education - your chuyka deceived you, dear professor. Contact Tadiran better, call Urdan, write a letter to El-Op. I am sure they will be happy to enlighten you. Brotherly. And also find out why "Bumblebee" wanted to buy a batch.
              1. 52
                +7
                31 July 2014 15: 58
                But in general, the Professor is right, the t-44-54-55-62 family has lived its life, it's time to rest. The century of these wonderful machines in the past, it is easier and more efficient to upgrade the "seventy-second", and the effect will be, and the number considerable. Yes, and these vehicles (t-44 .... 62) were removed from service in most countries. If you follow the path of insanity (expensive and useless modernization), then the T-334-85 is an even more interesting "subject". laughing
                1. padonok.71
                  +11
                  31 July 2014 17: 32
                  I don’t say that he is wrong, I don’t like their mentor, condescending tone. Like you are all ignoramuses and only, we are God's chosen, we know what and how to do. And they don’t remember what we did tanks (the best) when Israel was not in the project yet.
                  1. 0
                    1 August 2014 12: 22
                    Quote: padonok.71
                    And they don’t remember what we did tanks (the best) when Israel was not in the project yet.

                    Well, about the plans you probably went too far, these all are planning ahead of time to run into.
                    But de facto was not.
                  2. slava11
                    -6
                    1 August 2014 14: 21
                    But what can we do - we know. And you do not want to study and continue to build BMP and armored personnel carriers. Let the soldiers show heroism. Why protect them? We made excellent tanks, but then left Russia and now we build the best tanks in Israel. Sorry, but now we are working for ourselves.
              2. slava11
                -9
                1 August 2014 14: 17
                This is nonsense, not the answer. There is information - in the studio - there is no such silence in a rag. Strange, but it’s just good that we intercede for each other. Although honestly rotten people you. I treat the workers normally.
              3. -1
                1 August 2014 21: 15
                Quote: padonok.71
                Here she is your Semitic nature, only one touch! The whole kibutz will come running. But this is your genetics, the Arab-Semitic, you can’t get away from this.

                But essentially there is something to say?

                Quote: padonok.71
                Although to be honest, you people are rotten ..

                And you are the representative of which people? wink
                1. padonok.71
                  +2
                  2 August 2014 00: 22
                  Quote: professor
                  But essentially there is something to say?

                  Yes, he said everything that is not clear?
                  Quote: professor
                  And you are the representative of which people?

                  I am a representative of such a people, which has been throughout Europe for a couple of centuries, dru ... it, as he wants. Who "collected" so much land for himself and his children that you never dreamed of. And you there with your "Papuans" will not decide. And thanks to which, your dwarf understatement was created.
                  1. -1
                    2 August 2014 09: 14
                    Quote: padonok.71
                    Yes, he said everything that is not clear?

                    Boorish belching is all that you wanted to say "in essence"?


                    Quote: padonok.71
                    And also enlighten us dark ones, where these incomparable "destroyers" are now.

                    Enlightened: Remelted, sold / donated to the Papuans, converted into TBTRs - not a single "Tyrant" has been in service for decades.


                    Any questions?
                    Quote: padonok.71
                    I am a representative of such a people who have been all over Europe for a couple of centuries, drew ... um, as they want.

                    Tatar-Mongol?

                    You personally are a shame for any people to whom you relate. Rudeness and ignorance !!!

                    PS
                    El-OP and Tadiran smiled. good
                    1. padonok.71
                      +1
                      2 August 2014 11: 25
                      You know, sir, as it was in the Roman Senate, he sank to personal insults, the dispute lost, and the legates kick you under cf ... ku. Including, for myself, I have understood what you are. Smile on.
                      For satisfaction - in PM.
                      1. -2
                        2 August 2014 12: 53
                        Quote: padonok.71
                        You know, sir, as it was in the Roman Senate, he sank to personal insults, the dispute lost, and the legates kick you under cf ... ku.

                        Is that you so to yourself? After all, are these your pearls? wink

                        Quote: padonok.71
                        Here she is your Semitic nature, only one touch! The whole kibutz will come running. But this is your genetics, the Arab-Semitic, you can’t get away from this.
                        And only you should not blame me for anti-Semitism. I treat lawyers normally. Although to be honest, you people are rotten.


                        And now, essentially, about the Tyrants: Remelted, sold / donated to the Papuans, converted into TBTRs - not a single "Tyrant" has been in service for decades. Got it?

                        Quote: padonok.71
                        For satisfaction - in PM.

                        Satisfaction can only be expected from equals. Such boors as you just need to flog.
                      2. padonok.71
                        +1
                        2 August 2014 18: 55
                        I see it jammed you on Terany. Write 15 again, it’s necessary to feel better.
                        About the Senate - as an example. When the arguments end, insults begin (this is from a lack of education or intelligence, or from weakness).
                        And to smack - look at the "porolka" do not break off, with Hitler that you did not succeed very well, until the Russians calmed the "possessed" one, you were not so "brave".
                      3. +1
                        2 August 2014 21: 50
                        Quote: padonok.71
                        I see it jammed you on Terany. Write 15 again, it’s necessary to feel better.

                        Young man, if you did not pay attention to an article about the T-55 and its modernizations, one of which is Tiran. The article is not about Hitler and your relationship with him.

                        Quote: padonok.71
                        And flog - look "flog" do not break off

                        Lash, not whipping.
                      4. padonok.71
                        +2
                        2 August 2014 22: 15
                        Enchanting wit.
                        Well, at the expense of a loafer, I already drove the Taliban when you were only cut off a pussy.
                        We had no relations with Hitler. We broke him and that's it. He attributed it to you until the Russians passed.
                        Well, and what is there for you to bother you sadomasochism know better.
                      5. -2
                        2 August 2014 22: 23
                        Quote: padonok.71
                        Enchanting wit.

                        Young man then the topic MODERNIZATION T-55 have something to say?
                      6. padonok.71
                        +1
                        3 August 2014 00: 40
                        Yes there is. Modernization of the 55th, I think, became hopeless in the 90s. Why? Here's why: 1. Expensive (the price is comparable to buying a used 72nd, and this is another completely song). 2. Even with modernization, protection against the threats of modern combat was not provided. 3. Those who remained in service with the 55th used them as an assault gun, therefore, all modernization became unnecessary, in principle (and the gun is still good with him). 4. Those against whom it was used (in the 90s) didn’t have much to oppose, even without modernization.
                        One could still write a couple of points, but these, I think, are the main ones.
                        Until!
                        PS: I'm 42 years old
                      7. 0
                        3 August 2014 08: 29
                        Quote: padonok.71
                        Yes there is. Modernization of the 55th, I think, became hopeless in the 90s. Why? Here's why: 1. Expensive (the price is comparable to buying a used 72nd, and this is another completely song). 2. Even with modernization, protection against the threats of modern combat was not provided. 3. Those who remained in service with the 55th used them as an assault gun, therefore, all modernization became unnecessary, in principle (and the gun is still good with him). 4. Those against whom it was used (in the 90s) didn’t have much to oppose, even without modernization.

                        At the end, a substantive conversation in essence.
                        I do not agree with points 1 and 3; I do not argue with the rest. T-55 is not a bad platform for modernization for a tank of the middle African war - drive local rebels. They don’t need more. The enemy usually does not have tanks and modern ATGMs, and the proposed modernization allows it to be used in almost all conditions. Well, Abrams or Leopard for them to buy millions of dollars ...

                        Quote: padonok.71
                        PS: I'm 42 years old

                        Why are you acting like a kid? request
                      8. padonok.71
                        +1
                        3 August 2014 10: 00
                        Quote: professor
                        1. Expensive

                        That is, you want to say that from 1 million. dollars (for the Romanian version), up to 6,7 (for the Russian), is it not expensive for some Nigeria? from the same Romanians you can 72 (though shabby), buy for 7-10. And if on "gray", generally for 2-5.
                        Quote: professor
                        used them as an assault gun

                        What's wrong?
                        Quote: professor
                        Why are you acting like a kid?

                        Not a kid, but a man who is mortally tired of the whining of the Jews, they say everyone offends us, they don’t like us, but we are all so good. Do not whine, do your thing and all.
                      9. 0
                        3 August 2014 10: 36
                        Quote: padonok.71
                        That is, you want to say that from 1 million. dollars (for the Romanian version), up to 6,7 (for the Russian), is it not expensive for some Nigeria? from the same Romanians you can 72 (though shabby), buy for 7-10. And if on "gray", generally for 2-5.

                        It is expensive to buy a new tank, as it costs several million dollars. The advantage of the "naked" T-72 over this modernization of the T-55 is not obvious. The power of 700 hp for a 40 ton machine is quite enough, the dynamic travel of the rollers is increased, the weak point of the torsion bars is strengthened, the 100-mm cannon is more than enough, it is possible to hit the sparrows by 13 km, night vision goggles, new communication ... Plus the absence AZ increases the crew's chance to stay alive.

                        Quote: padonok.71
                        What's wrong?

                        This is only one and far from the most important purpose of armored vehicles with a large gun. The main task of this attavism today IMHO is the psychological effect. The times of the Battle of Kursk are forever gone.

                        Quote: padonok.71
                        Not a kid, but a man who is mortally tired of the whining of the Jews, they say everyone offends us, they don’t like us, but we are all so good. Do not whine, do your thing and all.

                        In the article, not a word about the Jews, and it was you who touched on this topic. Let's stay within and on the tanks.
                      10. padonok.71
                        +1
                        3 August 2014 12: 42
                        Quote: professor
                        Plus, the lack of AZ increases the crew's chance to stay alive.

                        This is generally a matter of religion - I don’t even want to argue. But I'm for AZ.
                        Quote: professor
                        This is only one and far from the most important purpose of armored vehicles with a large gun. The main task of this attavism today IMHO is the psychological effect. The times of the Battle of Kursk are forever gone.

                        I had in mind precisely the assault gun, not the tank destroyers, but how the SHO 55s are still used (at least look at the Syrian or Chechen experience).
                        Quote: professor
                        In the article, not a word about the Jews, and it was you who touched on this topic.

                        The first Slava touched this topic — some number (I don’t see it now - he probably put me on the black list), when he began to say that I was being neglected because I am a Jew.
                      11. -3
                        3 August 2014 13: 36
                        Quote: padonok.71
                        This is generally a matter of religion - I don’t even want to argue. But I'm for AZ.

                        And I am for the survival of the crew.

                        Quote: padonok.71
                        I had in mind precisely the assault gun, not the tank destroyers, but how the SHO 55s are still used (at least look at the Syrian or Chechen experience).

                        SHO has also outlived itself. The infantry’s pocket artillery combined with aviation (especially drones) and barrel artillery do an excellent job. An example of this is the current operation in Gaza. Although not everyone agrees with me now, and even Tzahal decided to strengthen the previously reduced armored forces. Syrian experience shows how weak and vulnerable a tank is in a city without the corresponding support of infantry, artillery and aviation.

                        Quote: padonok.71
                        The first Slava touched this topic — some number (I don’t see it now - he probably put me on the black list), when he began to say that I was being neglected because I am a Jew.

                        No, it was you who started to develop this. Here is a screenshot.
                      12. padonok.71
                        0
                        3 August 2014 20: 18
                        Quote: professor
                        And I am for the survival of the crew.

                        And what does survival have to do with it. Tower laying with an armored curtain, also no good. An example is Abrams.
                        AZ and RZ are different schools, a different concept of battle.

                        Quote: professor
                        SHO has also outlived itself. The infantry’s pocket artillery combined with aviation (especially drones) and barrel artillery do an excellent job. An example of this is the current operation in Gaza. Although not everyone agrees with me now, and even Tzahal decided to strengthen the previously reduced armored forces. Syrian experience shows how weak and vulnerable a tank is in a city without the corresponding support of infantry, artillery and aviation.

                        Who are you talking about now. Drones, pocket artillery of the infantry, is it really in service with countries whose 55th is still in use.
                        And then the 55-ka showed herself very well during the second Chechen one, namely as a direct fire SHO (in a city with infantry cover, along the streets, in areas like TO platoon cover, sometimes squads). Yes, Merkava might have been better in the city (I don’t know, I haven’t tried), but as they say, for lack of ...
                        Quote: professor
                        No, it was you who started to develop this. Here is a screenshot.

                        This is not the one, look better where he is about the whining that his anti-Semites are minus.
                        But even if I, what’s the reason, would you call a fascist? Should I be ashamed of this?
                        You call other nations goyim, you’re not ashamed, right?
                      13. -2
                        4 August 2014 11: 21
                        And what does survival have to do with it. Tower laying with an armored curtain, also no good. An example is Abrams.
                        AZ and RZ are different schools, a different concept of battle.

                        Survival despite the fact that almost any penetration of the armor leads to detonation of the combat unit and the flying tower. The number of flew towers of Abrans and T-55 is orders of magnitude less than that of T-72. All tanks have the same combat concept.

                        Who are you talking about now. Drones, pocket artillery of the infantry, is it really in service with countries whose 55th is still in use.

                        Exactly. For example, Peru, Chile and Colombia. Actively buy pocket artillery and drones.

                        And then the 55-ka showed herself very well during the second Chechen one, namely as a direct fire SHO (in a city with infantry cover, along the streets, in areas like TO platoon cover, sometimes squads). Yes, Merkava might have been better in the city (I don’t know, I haven’t tried), but as they say, for lack of ...

                        The lack of an Achilles heel - AZ apparently only benefits.

                        But even if I, what’s the reason, would you call a fascist? Should I be ashamed of this?
                        You call other nations goyim, you’re not ashamed, right?

                        Not a fascist, but narrow-minded. And yes, you should be ashamed of it. Jews traditionally call pagans goyim, but that doesn't matter. You don't call Russians "not Russians" ...
                      14. Mwg
                        +1
                        6 August 2014 19: 27
                        Professor, you and the Bastard. 71 aerobatics dive showed)))) Thank you)) I enjoyed reading your skirmish))
                      15. Mwg
                        0
                        6 August 2014 19: 29
                        .71, Have you been in a dispute with the Professor for a long time? Aerobatics)))) Thank you)) I enjoyed reading your skirmish))
            2. 0
              31 July 2014 19: 07
              Remelted, sold / donated to the Papuans, converted into TBTRs - not a single "Tyrant" has been in service for decades.

              oh so you call those who were pushed by SİMs and ASLANs :-)
              1. -1
                1 August 2014 21: 16
                Quote: Fat Man
                oh so you call those who were pushed by SİMs and ASLANs :-)

                No, I call the indigenous peoples of Africa where the teshes were sold.
        2. 0
          31 July 2014 16: 53
          "Corpses" from the 70s and 80s nowadays also surface in more developed countries in the form of modernizations and all kinds of upgrades. If there is a demand on the market, the T34-85 will be upgraded. All this speaks of a general brake on progress ...
          1. slava11
            -3
            1 August 2014 14: 25
            Do you even understand what you write. Will you send your son to fight on it? sad
            1. 0
              1 August 2014 16: 03
              "Do you even understand what you are writing. Will you send your son to fight on it?" Reindeer, you are not a cure buddy, you well understood the topic of discussion, for whom is UVZ monitoring the need?
              1. 0
                2 August 2014 23: 42
                Stalingrad, what the hell is he buddy? A frank provocateur who is trying to make confusion, and a techie professor, based on his flag, supports him, naive fool
        3. 0
          7 August 2014 00: 19
          And the article is about how to make T55 armored personnel carriers. No. Article about the revitalization of a corpse That's when they write about the project of alteration in the APC then you will minus me.
          An article about the fact that if someone does not have money for a T-90 or "Merkava", then there is an option to improve the "old" wink This is precisely why Israel did not allow them to be remelted, but converted them into heavy armored personnel carriers. We considered and decided that it was more profitable than buying something new fellow
    2. +6
      31 July 2014 18: 32
      Then you melted all the T55s, and didn’t build the Azarkhit armored personnel carrier from them (it seems so called).
      What kind of people are such a religion.
      1. slava11
        -3
        1 August 2014 14: 27
        We care about people, and in Russia about technology, so that we don’t break anything. In the 80s I studied at a military school, AKM was my machine gun, my year of birth, but all my classmates were sure that the warehouses were bursting with AK 74 new in lubrication. But who cares about cannon fodder?
        1. 0
          7 August 2014 00: 12
          We care about people, and in Russia about technology, so that we don’t break anything. In the 80s I studied at a military school, AKM was my machine gun, my year of birth, but all my classmates were sure that the warehouses were bursting with AK 74 new in lubrication. But who cares about cannon fodder?
          I'm not sure that cadets need to issue brand new Kalashi once a year wink But in the 80s in the reconnaissance company, we served in such a way, we changed them every year, because they shot a lot. fellow And what about "cannon meat" you are in vain. Always and EVERYWHERE it depended on PEOPLE (ie, "fathers of commanders") and if you were unlucky with THEM it does not mean that ALL are like that.
      2. 0
        1 August 2014 21: 17
        Quote: carbofo
        What kind of people are such a religion.

        Do not be so self-critical to yourself. And among you there are decent people.
        1. +1
          4 August 2014 11: 10
          And among you there are decent people.

          Do you think they are not among yours? I will not doubt it.
  9. +2
    31 July 2014 11: 06
    Normal upgrade. the iron is reliable there, and the filling will be quite modern. The gun to fight Abrams is not designed, but with good mobility, not everything is so sad. I understand that this is for African friends and for Vietnam.
    1. Hawk2014
      0
      2 August 2014 19: 41
      Do Africans and Vietnamese need tanks? In those regions, the nature of wars is slightly different. And then, against the background of the war in eastern Ukraine, tanks as a type of weaponry faded greatly. Of course, we can say that the Ukrainian officers are completely nonexistent, and Strelkov is a mega-warrior, but this is why the military-technical advantage is created so that the oversights of the high command staff are not noticeable.
      1. +2
        3 August 2014 15: 08
        And then, against the background of the war in eastern Ukraine, tanks as a form of armament faded greatly
        So I say tanks are not comme il faut! Give way to modern, high-tech weapons !!!!!
  10. Crang
    +5
    31 July 2014 11: 19
    Is this a joke or an advertisement from the 80s? The phrase was amused:
    It should be noted that the project to modernize the T-55 vehicles proposed by Uralvagonzavod has almost no relation to the T-55AM tank, developed in the early eighties.
    And in my opinion this is one in one mutant T-55AM / AMV 1985 release. In no way did this modernization improve the performance of the machine compared to 85.
    1. slava11
      -5
      1 August 2014 14: 29
      Well, why, but it looks like how cool ?! And how much money can be cut.
      1. +1
        2 August 2014 14: 11
        Quote: slava11
        And how much money can be cut

        The problem, of course, exists. But how is it served! Russia alone has already corrupt and piloted the total global budget more than once. But, after all, similar processes are going on all over the world. Perhaps it’s scary to say, even in MOST (!) Israel.
  11. +23
    31 July 2014 11: 43
    On the T-55 tower, it means you can tightly install the DZ, but on the T-72B3 it's still impossible ?! On the T-55, it means you can hang a full-fledged on-board screen with the remote sensing, but on the T-72B3 it means all the same 3 "fig leaves" cost, as on the T-90A ... hmm ... strange.
    1. 0
      2 August 2014 14: 14
      Tagil is one thing, Omsk is different.
    2. 0
      7 August 2014 00: 30
      but on the T-72B3 it means all the same 3 "fig leaves
      With the T-72B3 already, in my opinion, everyone has spoken out - modernization-NO (or complete shit). Maybe with the arrival of Rogozin it will stop, the "Slingshot" option is much better wink
  12. Crang
    +2
    31 July 2014 12: 07
    Quote: Realist1989
    On the T-55, then you can hang a full-fledged side screen with DZ,

    He is not full. It is full-fledged full-length as in Western tanks. And our T-55AM and T-80U only to MTO or to the middle of the body.
  13. +3
    31 July 2014 12: 28
    All the same, the 105mm L7 gun looks more suitable due to the nomenclature of the BK.
    And somewhere I read that the initial velocity of the projectile in L7 exceeds 1,5 times the D-10T (the question is how about this in the above modernization).
    In the USSR they decided to fight this in a more original way - they made a 115mm gun.
    1. Crang
      +1
      31 July 2014 13: 39
      Quote: gallville
      And somewhere I read that the initial velocity of the projectile in L7 exceeds 1,5 times the D-10T (the question is how about this in the above modernization).

      Wrong read.
      1. 0
        1 August 2014 10: 49
        And read the mat part before writing something not?
        D-10T
        starting speed
        projectile, m/s OFS: 600..900
        BTS: 895
        http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/100-%D0%BC%D0%BC_%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%
        B2%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%BF%D1%83%D1%88%D0%BA%D0%B0_%D0%94-10
        In the shell of the post-war English tank gun L7, this figure reached 1475 m / s, in total

        http://www.telenir.net/transport_i_aviacija/istorija_tanka_1916_1996/p94.php
        Ammunition for 105-mm guns L7 / M68 American version of the English L7
        Armor-piercing-subcaliber:
        M728 1426
        M735 1501
        M774 1503
        High-explosive fragmentation М494 821
        http://www.soldiering.ru/army/tank/shell_97.php
        1. Crang
          0
          2 August 2014 20: 05
          Quote: gallville
          And read the mat part before writing something not?

          You should read this "materiel".
          Quote: gallville
          D-10T
          starting speed
          projectile, m/s OFS: 600..900
          BPS: 895

          This is not a BPS, but simply a caliber armor-piercing projectile. Which existed during the Second World War and those that entered service shortly after the war. These are armor-piercing shells BR-412, BR-412B, BR-412D. Here their initial speed was 895 m / s. In 1967, the first armor-piercing sub-caliber projectile ZB54 appeared in the ammunition of the Soviet T-55 and T-8 tanks. Its initial speed was 1415m / s. From 2 km, it penetrated the armor with a thickness of 290 mm along the normal. The initial speed of armor-piercing subcaliber shells (the same BPS) for the 105mm British L7 cannon was 1475m / s. Thus, in terms of the initial speed of the BPS, the British 105mm L7 cannon was superior to our 100mm D-10T not "1,5 times", but only 4%.
          UNDERSTANDABLY?
          1. 0
            5 August 2014 00: 57
            There is only one moment, for all the time these 1500 m / s have not increased.
            And unlike the t-72,
            gun 2A46
            caliber 125 mm
            starting speed
            projectile, m / s
            BPS: 1715..1800
            BCS: 905..950
            OFS: 760
            The difference is that we went along the path of increasing the velocity of the projectile, and in the west along the path of weighting the core with uranium.
            Therefore, despite the differences in speeds, the efficiency of the BPS is approximately the same.
            http://btvt.narod.ru/4/uran.htm
  14. slava11
    -2
    31 July 2014 13: 01
    In general, you are somehow strange - according to the principle, even worse, but your own. We can now remake you several dozen and maybe hundreds - T55, T62, T72 into heavy armored personnel carriers that you need like water, your soldiers die in ambushes, ride on armor and die from small arms (in Israel, light armored personnel carriers are called "can of tuna"). And you either save or pride does not allow. No one has more experience in design, construction, alteration, repair, operation and use of heavy armored personnel carriers than we have.
    1. Chegevara21
      +6
      31 July 2014 15: 14
      They promised to make a heavy armored personnel carrier on the basis of Almaty.
      1. -2
        2 August 2014 13: 56
        Quote: Chegevara21
        They promised to make a heavy armored personnel carrier on the basis of Almaty.

        The promised three years are waiting.
        1. 0
          2 August 2014 15: 58
          Quote: tomket
          The promised three years are waiting.

          And another 33 are waiting for Armata. laughing
    2. +6
      31 July 2014 16: 33
      In general, you are somehow strange - according to the principle, even worse, but your own. We can now remake you several dozen and maybe hundreds - T55, T62, T72 into heavy armored personnel carriers that you need like water, your soldiers die in ambushes, ride on armor and die from small arms (in Israel, light armored personnel carriers are called "can of tuna").
      We, as water, did not need heavy armored personnel carriers, but the commanders were normal. To give you our "Yermolovs", so not like heavy armored personnel carriers, tactical nuclear weapons will not help you.
      1. padonok.71
        +7
        31 July 2014 17: 40
        And if also our politicians .... It’s time to shoot himself.
        1. Hawk2014
          0
          2 August 2014 19: 45
          And who's stopping? laughing
    3. 0
      1 August 2014 15: 56
      And your country is a piece of burnt stone the size of the Moscow region and a resource of 5000 km will go and buoyancy is not needed. If we are armed with BMO-t better than your Akhzarite. ))) Modernization of the T-55 just for the "africa" ​​ie export it was removed from armament of the Russian Federation.
  15. +2
    31 July 2014 13: 21
    Quote: slava11
    T55, T62, T72 in heavy armored personnel carriers that you need as water

    I agree completely. Why put a new outdated? It’s better to buy a T-72 on the cheap and think further. But to remake hundreds of T-55s in an armored personnel carrier, and to remove turrets from a part of the tanks and install a new uninhabited weapon module and get an BMPT, would be interesting. Combine three types of vehicles (tank, armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles at its base) into a single military unit in order to unify the chassis. You can also put ATGMs, etc.
    1. Davidon
      +2
      31 July 2014 15: 29
      I think the t-55 is too tight layout for armored personnel carriers.
      1. +1
        1 August 2014 00: 25
        And if you put the UTD-55 and the new transmission in place of B-32, you can extend the housing by one skating rink ... In principle, with a competent approach, you can make an excellent TBTR. But I suspect that this is not in the interests of UVZ
        1. 52
          0
          1 August 2014 19: 00
          Oh, how we know economics and technology! Just lengthen by one rink, i.e. create a new CASE! Well, amused, the new body of the old tank! Learn the materiel!
          1. 0
            2 August 2014 21: 21
            Oh, how we know economics and technology!
            I am not an engineer. Replica
            lengthen the housing on one roller ...
            based on the history of the creation of the "object 640", I have a book "the history of the creation of the t-80" which says that the chassis for the "object 640" is the t-80u body increased by one roller ... Again, I am not an engineer, and it seems to me not too complicated, welding into the case of an additional section. And maybe it is or not, alas, I don’t know ... I would be grateful for clarifications on this topic
      2. +1
        1 August 2014 02: 16
        Quote: Davion
        I think the t-55 is too tight layout for armored personnel carriers.

        Jews don’t think so ...
    2. +2
      31 July 2014 20: 59
      BTR-T is a Russian heavy armored personnel carrier. The armored personnel carrier was created on the basis of the T-55, but the creation of a heavy armored personnel carrier is possible on the basis of any model of the main tank of the Russian Armed Forces. The vehicle was not armed because of its design flaws, including low compared to modern tanks of defense and unsuccessfully implemented dismounting and deployment of the landing.
      1. 0
        1 August 2014 00: 28
        and unsuccessfully implemented dismounting and deployment of the landing.
        Well this is stupid for sure! For on the BMO T the exact same dismounting scheme and BMP-3 do not forget
      2. +2
        1 August 2014 02: 29
        In terms of converting obsolete and not very tanks into heavy armored personnel carriers, it makes sense to learn from Israel. Azarhite (based on T55), Namer (based on Mrkava) and Puma (based on Centurion) all proved themselves to be excellent in constant wars (though TVD is specific). There is also room for heavy vehicles in the European Army in the European theater of operations, no need to re-equip all parts to heavy ones, the concept of using floating infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers is more viable when conducting combined arms operations, but in an urbanized area or with a technical advantage (as with Ukrainians New Russia) such machines are much more efficient than light ones.
        1. +2
          1 August 2014 04: 33
          it makes sense to learn from Israel
          It makes sense! But personally, I prefer the project “Kharkov Armored Repair Plant”
        2. +1
          1 August 2014 04: 40
          the concept of using floating infantry fighting vehicles and armored personnel carriers is more viable when conducting combined arms operations
          This concept did not justify itself, and in the future it is simply barbarism ...

          If you do not agree, then please justify this concept ...

          Floating infantry fighting vehicles make sense only in the Marine Corps and Airborne. And in the Airborne Forces it is necessary to categorically refuse armored vehicles being dropped by the parachute method, since this is completely crazy
          1. +2
            1 August 2014 07: 52
            Quote: Patton5
            This concept did not justify itself, and in the future it is simply barbarism ...
            What is barbarism, dear? An armored personnel carrier is not a bomb shelter, it is a "heavy" armored personnel carrier, rather, barbarism, as it provokes the use of infantry inside the "tin" on the first line, along with tanks. In general, it is very strange to read the comments, where, often, the same people around the BMPT (which is designed to make life easier for the infantry in the cover of tanks, and tanks in the fight against enemy infantry) that it has too many crew (five people), and here they sing hosanna to "heavy" armored personnel carriers, and a dozen paratroopers - "suicide bombers" on board no longer bother them. Israeli heavy armored personnel carriers are the specifics of the geography of Israel (dry climate and a small territory), in some ways the specifics of their mentality (do not go to waste, everything is altered from tanks, and not specially created), and the specifics of Israel's military operations, which are often closer to police actions and punitive raids against Palestinian militants armed only with light weapons. Russia is another matter, with its vastness, rivers, lakes and swamps. To fight against floating technology that facilitates the crossing of water obstacles, if not sabotage, then stupidity or shortsightedness. Just like sabotage, stupidity and short-sightedness, all calls to abandon the possibility of parachuting in the Airborne Forces, while driving the idea of ​​using this method to complete absurdity.
            1. +4
              1 August 2014 09: 34
              Let's get it in order!
              What is barbarism, dear? An armored personnel carrier is not a bomb shelter, it is a "heavy" armored personnel carrier, rather, barbarism, as it provokes the use of infantry inside a "tin" on the first line
              The experience of recent conflicts of "low intensity" for at least 30 years, has shown that for a clean armored personnel carrier is used to support the infantry, the charter says that the armored personnel carrier is a delivery vehicle to the front line, after which the landing force dismounts and the armored personnel carrier must support the infantry with its fire ) ... the question to you is which armored personnel carrier can handle such a task better, light or heavy?
              In general, it’s very strange to read comments where, often, the same people skip BMPT
              I have never "crumpled" BMPT as a concept, the truth is that what the UKBTM offers is not what is needed, but not the essence. Now, if the industry creates a BMPT that can clean up the building, basements, etc. that's when I think it will be correct to compare TBTR and BMPT
              Israeli heavy armored personnel carrier is a specificity of the geography of Israel
              This is a specific application in urban areas! What does geography have to do with it?
              dry climate and small area
              That is, you think that in a humid climate TBTR is not suitable for use? smile And the territory ??? We have BMP / BTR Weapons are armed with mechanized brigades along with MBT, for example, if the equipment is on the march, then both MBT and BTR are included in the convoy, and if the transfer to the theater of operations is by rail, then both MBT and BTR are loaded onto platforms ... Once again the question, what does the territory have to do with it?
              in some ways the specifics of their mentality
              I agree ... the main priority is the life of a soldier
              armed only with light weapons
              Well yes! Who told you that ?!
              Another thing is Russia, with its open spaces, rivers, lakes and swamps. Ratat against floating equipment that facilitates the forcing of water obstacles
              With open spaces already answered like. With rivers and lakes ... I wouldn’t advocate if MBTs could also swim ... But they don’t know how, and it turns out that let's say a bridgehead on the other side of the river should be captured by armored personnel carriers / armored vehicles with armor that doesn’t get through except from a pistol / pistol a machine gun, and some kind of comrade with RPG 18 makes a mass grave from an armored personnel carrier, and the tanks at this time force along the bottom of the river or through a pontoon crossing, although again, according to the charter, they must act in the same order with each other!
              full time as well as wrecking, stupidity and shortsightedness, all calls to abandon the possibility of parachuting in the Airborne
              Give an example where this wonderful feature was used? Or under what circumstances can it be used? But the fact that the landing force on this aluminum, the armor of which is even thinner than that of the BMP, must fight, by the way, and the capacity is less (which in your opinion is undoubtedly a plus. Since there will be less corpses)
              1. +3
                1 August 2014 13: 35
                The landing party can leave the BMD. But for motorized riflemen TBMP, the speed of the convoy is determined by its slowest participant .. you don't need anything else, if after that you lengthen the hull on the skating rink, install a smaller engine, the same UTD 32, and manages to place a landing there, 6 people will become very good, well, she will have a maximum speed of 40 km per hour, well, to hell with her, really tracked heavy equipment never travels faster, all these 70-80 km / h for exhibitions and for show ... It will weigh within 55-60 tons and is normal, the plane will not pull (it will not fit) and the carriage is quite ...
              2. -1
                1 August 2014 13: 42
                Quote: Patton5
                the question is, what kind of armored personnel carrier can cope with such a task better, light or heavy?
                You answer, you take from the context of the tasks of the armored personnel carrier only a part, and the auxiliary part, as "support", the main task of the armored personnel carrier is still precisely the transportation of the infantry to the front edge. If we emphasize this, then here we need not an armored personnel carrier, light or heavy, but a tank, the firepower of which an armored personnel carrier or an infantry fighting vehicle cannot replace.
                Quote: Patton5
                Never "wrap around" BMPT as a concept
                There are no claims to you here, but about the "cleaning" of buildings, in which the TBTR has more advantages over the BMPT ... You know, if there was at least one use of BMPTs in battle, in particular, in urban combat, like the TBTR in our army! What is there to talk about now, only about the theory of such a possibility, in which the "pumping" of the BMPT seems to be stronger, the capabilities of the armored personnel carrier. As for the infantry itself in combat, especially in street battles, I did not claim that the BMPT would completely replace the infantry, the role of man, the role of the infantry, remains and will always remain, even at the beginning of robot wars.
                Quote: Patton5
                What does geography have to do with it?
                Cities, street fights do not hang in the void, between cities there is a territory, and often a large territory, if we talk about Russia. Do not distort what a march and power reserve are; it is not for me to tell you about the rivers and swamps on the march as well. We can talk about railway platforms only when transporting equipment from the rear, but not during a maneuvering war over a large territory, again, with rivers and swamps. The fact that MBTs are not floating is not a verdict of refusing other floating equipment. Your example of a bridgehead is not indicative here, with this vision, we must abandon not only the amphibious armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles, but also the airborne forces and the marine corps, in general, any actions of military units with which MBT is not provided.
                Quote: Patton5
                the main priority is the life of a soldier
                This is the most important thing, here, usually, and most often one has to see various speculations about "cans" and "aluminum armor". Protection of soldiers' lives is determined not only by armor, but by the competent use of the capabilities of technology and battle tactics. Give the fool-commander even the newly-minted "Mouse", he will destroy the soldiers in him, especially since there is no equipment that does not burn, which cannot be knocked out, and maneuverability and maneuverability will sooner save the soldiers' lives than the thick-skinned armor of the heaviest armored personnel carrier stuck in mud, standing in front of the swamp, clumsy on the battlefield under fire.
                1. slava11
                  -1
                  1 August 2014 14: 59
                  That is, in short - Russian soldiers do not need heavy armored personnel carriers - the Jews came up with - we do not need. Fight the soldiers with your mind, and if you died then either valor showed little or no mind, and not like we regretted the good technique.
                  1. 0
                    1 August 2014 17: 43
                    Quote: slava11
                    That is, in short - Russian soldiers do not need heavy armored personnel carriers - the Jews came up with - we do not need.
                    Why is it not necessary, simply, it is not necessary to take everything to extremes. In general, even a pickup truck with a large-caliber machine gun in the back, like some Toyota, because of its maneuverability, can become more useful in street combat than a heavy armored personnel carrier with the same machine gun. It all depends on the specific situation, which may require a heavy armored personnel carrier, especially if it is possible to remake them for the army from old tanks, saving money and time.
                2. 0
                  1 August 2014 20: 09
                  You take from the context of the tasks of the armored personnel carrier only a part, and the auxiliary part, as "support", the main task of the armored personnel carrier is still precisely the transportation of the infantry to the front edge
                  That's exactly what it is essentially an armored truck ... And the military uses it as a BMP, all the more the temptation grew after the appearance of the BTR-82a, MT-LB 6MB, but this is IMHO, a crime!
                  You know, if there was at least one use in combat BMPT, in particular, in urban combat, like the TBTR in our army! What are we talking about now?
                  only about the theory of such a possibility, in which the "pumping" of BMPT seems to be stronger
                  Only in theory, because there is a hypertrophied BMP-3 with an amazingly powerful "melon-u" module which is head and shoulders above the one on the BMPT from UKBTM, despite the fact that the BMP-3 has bulletproof booking. So your theory is not consistent!
                  Cities, street fights do not hang in the void, between cities there is a territory, and often a large territory, if we talk about Russia.
                  Wonderful !!! Let's say that you rushed to the BTR-82a, to the city of X, the tanks were hopelessly behind ... Your actions?
                  Your bridgehead example is not significant here.
                  This is an intentional exaggeration! For on these machines, the boys need to go into battle and not to the parade!
                  This is the most important thing, here, usually, and most often one has to see various speculations about "cans" and "aluminum armor". Protection of soldiers' lives is determined not only by armor, but by the competent use of the capabilities of technology and battle tactics. Give the fool-commander even the newly minted "Mouse", he will destroy the soldiers in him
                  Following your logic, the brilliant commander needs to be given cavalry with spades, and he will do such business ... mom do not worry!
                  and maneuverability and patency, rather save the lives of soldiers than the thick-armored armor of the heaviest armored personnel carrier
                  So there you go! Statistics say the opposite ... That heavy equipment is more mobile on the battlefield than light!
              3. slava11
                -2
                1 August 2014 14: 46
                Simple, intelligible and professional. In principle, today it is difficult to find the use of infantry fighting vehicles in the form in which Russia has it. The armor does not withstand even large-caliber rifles, but it doesn’t even matter, the number of RPGs of different types makes light vehicles completely not combat ready.
            2. slava11
              +1
              1 August 2014 14: 42
              And when was the last time you swam?
              1. 0
                1 August 2014 18: 04
                Quote: slava11
                And when was the last time you swam?
                And when was the last time they used nuclear weapons? Nevertheless, it is and will be. It doesn’t matter when you need to sail or land by parachute, this opportunity should be, as well as the ability to deliver a nuclear strike. Enemies should know that if necessary, there will be sailing through the English Channel or landing, even to Alaska, not to mention smaller, but more urgent tasks for the war, which will demand these capabilities of technology, the need for which has not been canceled.
                1. slava11
                  -1
                  4 August 2014 15: 42
                  So for this there are landing troops. Why heavy infantry need light armored personnel carriers?
              2. +1
                2 August 2014 15: 35
                If I am not mistaken, then one of the key moments of the Yom Kippur War was the forcing and seizure of the bridgehead using captured PT-76s. And the subsequent expansion of the captured bridgehead. As they say, a spoon is good for dinner.
                1. slava11
                  0
                  4 August 2014 15: 43
                  Actually, they crossed the lake at the junction of two armies. And yes, they used all that was. The fact is that you do NOT have a heavy APC at all. That is what it is about.
            3. +1
              1 August 2014 16: 58
              If you take a full-time (real, and not from fantasy) motorized rifle or airborne unit and suddenly set the task of forcing a less serious water obstacle on a floating armored vehicle, everything will get drowned! Do you really believe that today's technology in parts is capable of this? Maybe 10-15% will come up, and the rest? The remaining ones are still not enough to complete the combat mission, which means they will build a bridge. look for ford and stuff, and they’ll get water only as a last resort, most likely getting out from under the impact of weapons of destruction .. in all the rest they will shoot for the drowned equipment and the commander’s people ..
              1. 0
                1 August 2014 17: 28
                Quote: max702
                and unexpectedly set the task of forcing a less serious water barrier on a floating armored vehicle, everything will go drowning!
                You, Maxim, take extremes. A trained crew on working equipment, especially on the new BMP-3 or BMD-4M, will not drown anywhere. If we talk about gouging, they will also drown a motor boat, not just BMPs. The armored personnel carriers swim beautifully at the marines, as BMP-3F could perfectly swim, but some lobbyists, saboteurs, are stubbornly hindering our fleet with its supplies.
              2. 0
                4 August 2014 15: 20
                In Chechnya, both armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles were transported via Sunzha.
                What will prevent a healthy equipment from being transported?
                1. slava11
                  -1
                  4 August 2014 15: 27
                  You don’t understand at all here? The price of a soldier’s life should be maximum. And again you send your soldiers in cans against grenade launchers. And if possible, where can I read about this operation?
          2. +4
            1 August 2014 16: 21
            Tommygun  23 October 2013 10: 18 | Two options for upgrading the BMP-2 from Kurganmashzavod

            My opinion: each task should have its own technique.
            In tank and motorized rifle brigades / divisions BMP / BTR on a tank chassis. I do not see the fundamental meaning in a floating infantry fighting vehicle with a non-floating tank.
            Highly mobile light armored vehicles are needed in the Airborne Forces, MP, reconnaissance, etc. Naturally new, designed taking into account the combat use of previous models.
            Into the internal troops
            And finally stop using the technique for unusual tasks. This refers to the use, for example, of the Airborne Forces with its lightest vehicles as infantry.
            In the meantime, there are no new models, modernization is necessary, but according to the technical specification from the Ministry of Defense, and not who in what is much. And the fact that the "specialists" of the Ministry of Defense cannot create technical specifications even for small arms speaks only of their incompetence.
        3. -2
          1 August 2014 16: 07
          Everything has been in the series for a long time
    3. +5
      1 August 2014 07: 58
      If in support of MBT motorized infantry (sorry motorized riflemen) is equipped with a heavy infantry fighting vehicle, then for what reason do you need BMPT here? Infantry is the best guard for a tank. A tank is the best means of supporting infantry. The infantry on the BMP protected at the level of MBT, armed with an automatic gun + ATGM (s) will fulfill the role of BMPT, but BMPT will never play the role of infantry ...
      1. 0
        1 August 2014 08: 27
        Why is a heavy BMP better than a BMPT? The BMPT is specialized, that is, it can be better armed and protected, and the BMP is initially universal, sacrificing some of the protection and weapons for the ability to carry troops in its womb. Finally, BMPT does not exclude the use of infantry from "non-heavy infantry fighting vehicles". A heavy infantry fighting vehicle is a kind of "fur bra" that can be justified only when using stocks of old tanks for alteration, or, as a combat vehicle for internal troops, in special operations against small groups of terrorists.
        1. +2
          1 August 2014 09: 46
          BMPT is specialized, that is, it can be better armed and protected
          Well, stupidity, utter nonsense! How do you think the "Berezhok" module is inferior in armament to the one on the BMPT from the UKBTM?
          "bra with fur", which can only be justified when using stocks of old tanks for rework
          then the military are making plans for the BMP-T based on the "Armata"
          or, as a fighting vehicle for internal troops, in special operations against small groups of terrorists.
          with accuracy up to a turn
          1. +3
            1 August 2014 14: 05
            Quote: Patton5
            Well, stupidity, utterly!
            Are you going to argue that "three in one bottle" is better than three bottles? I have already said that the BMPT is essentially a specialized tank, the function of the tank does not include specialization for the transportation of infantry, and all that result, such as a place for an airborne squad and so on, which will require its own weight and volume. It is impossible to add something not to the detriment of the existing one, in this sense the BMPT is preferable in terms of functionality to any armored personnel carrier or BMPT, if we talk specifically about the capabilities of firepower and armor protection.
            Quote: Patton5
            the military are making plans for the BMP-T based on the "Armata"
            They are building ... We could have been producing T-8 for 10-95 years, if not for the hypnosis of this magic word PLATFORM. What, however, is not the "platform" running T-72 / T-90, on the basis of which the same "Buratino", "Solntsepeki" and artillery self-propelled guns were built, could BMPT or TBTR? Time will tell what will come out of "Armat" and its "platform", but this time has already shown that the stake on a "compact" army and "anti-terrorist" war is a complete utopia. Russia is surrounded from all sides, and a new big war will break out, it will be from sea to sea, without rear, and without hopes for purely police operations to clean up individual settlements.
        2. +2
          1 August 2014 10: 10
          IMHO it would be more correct to define "than BMPT is better than infantry"?
          I absolutely agree with you that highly specialized is always better than universal. BUT ... But only in its spectrum. No more. In an open field during combined-arms combat, the BMPT will be able to perfectly hit enemy MBT with supersonic missiles. The calculation of ATGMs from the 2A42 or PKT sparks will amaze you perfectly. It’s just as wonderful as a TBMP with the same armament will do ... Let it not be paired but single 2A42 ...
          But cam, we know the range of combat missions is not limited only to combined arms combat in the open field ... Recent decades, on the contrary, indicate that such clashes are almost an exception to the rule ... Almost the majority of battles take place in urban areas (although of course far Not all). Infantry without tank support is weak. Tanks without infantry support are defenseless. Only competent interaction gives the proper result (at least on the streets of Berlin in the 45th, at least in Damascus of the 21st century. Can BMPT replace infantry? It is very doubtful. There can be no question of cleaning the cellars or upper floors of buildings (namely, they represent the most convenient positions for grenade launchers). A battle in a city, unlike a field (forest), poses many threats to a tank from various azimuths and various zenith angles. Almost from the entire upper hemisphere. Can BMPT fire simultaneously from the entire range of weapons in its m odule? NO! Can BMPT fire simultaneously in different directions? NO.
          Can dismounted infantry + infantry fighting vehicles be made from the above? Can. And does.

          Regarding the "complex" Tank + BMPT + "cardboard" BMP ...
          This bundle looks better with BMPT than without it. But the infantry, as it was vulnerable, and remained ... What is the tactics of "hunters" for tanks? Cut off the infantry! Will it be difficult to do this by hitting a cardboard BMP? No. A pair of Tank-BMPTs will remain without cover ... And how relevant is not a cheap vehicle (BMPT) if it itself needs support?
          Again, the MO does not shell out on TBMP, and on THREE cars instead of two ...

          Speak on fur? Ie alteration for the sake of rework? Oh no. Alteration is not for nothing that the old tanks would not stand in the parks. And from the fact that creating a new TBMP is more expensive than refitting from a tank.

          Why did you decide that TBMP is for "police operations"? Or is the infantry less vulnerable in a large-scale war with regular troops, or less willing to live? What would you yourself say about security if you had to climb under the bullets and PG-7V yourself? Would you prefer active armor or tin armor?
          How does a shot from an RPG-7 in a formidable "terrorist" differ from a shot from the same "7" by a fighter of the National Guard of Ukraine ???
          1. 0
            1 August 2014 14: 10
            Quote: Aristocrat
            IMHO it would be more correct to define "than BMPT is better than infantry"?
            Not better than infantry, but better for helping infantry and tanks. No need to contrast the equipment with different tasks, or try to create something that combines a tank and an armored personnel carrier in one volume.
            1. +1
              1 August 2014 20: 09
              This is what it is that must be "ripe at the root" (Kozma Prutkov).
              BMPT - should be considered within the concept of application. I have not opposed it. I noted its failure. The idea is good. But there are better "ideas". And this is TBMP. In the last post, I described everything in detail.
              BMP is a kind of compromise between "tank and armored personnel carrier". TBMP - has in common with the tank only "chassis". And only. Don't see a tank in it. We must see the BMP in her, who she is.
              If you do not agree with me (and this is your right!), Give reasons. I brought a great many of them. Refute at least a part.
              1. 0
                1 August 2014 22: 02
                Quote: Aristocrat
                If you do not agree with me (and this is your right!), Give reasons.
                I agree with you that saving soldiers' lives, minimizing losses, is one of the most important tasks in a war. This is achieved both by the perfection of technology and weapons in general, and by the training of soldiers and the talent of commanders. This is a wide range of measures, not limited to one armor protection. I have already said that an infantry fighting vehicle or an armored personnel carrier is not a bomb shelter, the infantry will still have to dismount for battle, and any infantry fighting vehicle is intended primarily for transporting infantry, which imposes certain requirements on the internal volume, armor and weapons. You can't push a tank and a transporter into one BMP or armored personnel carrier, you have to sacrifice something, some qualities. In this sense, BMPT, for support, is preferable to BMP. Let's just immediately determine that the existing appearance of the BMPPT of the "Terminator" type is not a final appearance and can be changed and improved, having greater potential for armor and weapons in front of a heavy infantry fighting vehicle, since it is not limited by the functions of infantry transport. Second, the entire "weight" of the BMP, in the sense of protecting the landing, makes sense before dismounting the infantry, which does not fight from under the armor. By the way, in the variant of converting the T-64 for a heavy infantry fighting vehicle, loopholes were abandoned, and the stern embrasure can hardly be considered a significant help for battle, especially on the move. Conclusion, the infantry still leaves the BMP, "normal" or "heavy", and if it does not leave, then become ballast in battle and risk burning if the BMP is defeated, which will become a "mass grave." In this sense, it makes no difference what the BMP was, all the more so if the BMP should not replace tanks in battle, get out on the first line, and even with a landing party inside. So think about why a heavy BMP. At the checkpoint, behind concrete blocks, maybe a tank or a tank support combat vehicle, what is the reason, except for self-deception and speculation of saving soldiers' lives? You have lost the advantages of a floating vehicle, an airborne vehicle, increased weight, reduced maneuverability, cruising range and overall motor resource, but the infantry will still dismount for battle, and the heavy infantry fighting vehicle did not become a tank, either in terms of armament or general armor protection. I don't know who is jerking off on the minuses, but I tried to express my vision of the problem and somehow argue. Of course, this is just my opinion, and nothing more.
                1. 0
                  2 August 2014 03: 17
                  Quote: Per se.
                  I have already said that an infantry fighting vehicle or armored personnel carrier is not a bomb shelter, infantry will still have to dismount for combat, and any infantry fighting vehicle is primarily intended for transporting infantry, which imposes certain requirements on internal volume, armor and weapons. You can’t push a tank and a conveyor into one BMP or an armored personnel carrier, you have to sacrifice something, some qualities. In this sense, BMPTT is preferable to support BMP for support.


                  I agree that the weapons of the BMPT cannot be more powerful than the BMPT.
                  It seems to me that you perceive TBMP as a tank, more precisely as a "nedotank". BMP is not at all and does not pretend to be.

                  Quote: Per se.
                  Let's just immediately determine that the existing appearance of the BMPPT of the "Terminator" type is not a final look and can be changed and improved,

                  I absolutely agree, as well as with the fact that the BMPT is not a makeshift shelter with a machine gun nest ala Akhzarit. Cannon weapons and ATGMs are welcome.
                  Quote: Per se.
                  Second, the entire "weight" of the BMP, in the sense of protecting the landing, makes sense before dismounting the infantry, which does not fight from under the armor.

                  Absolutely, otherwise the troopers will turn into a crew. But I do not agree with the "severity". After leaving the landing, the BMPT is still well armored and armed and is able to support its charges with fire and armor.
                  Quote: Per se.
                  By the way, in the variant of remaking the T-64 under heavy infantry fighting vehicles, loopholes were abandoned

                  And not only in this BMP. Loopholes will weaken side armor. These loopholes can be made in the roof for observation and fire on the floors of buildings. In the armament of TBMP, provide at least one machine gun or AH remotely controlled by the landing force (so that they would not sit idle).

                  Quote: Per se.
                  BMP should not replace tanks in battle, get out on the first line, and even with the landing inside. So think about why heavy BMP. At the checkpoint, behind concrete blocks, can there be a tank or a tank support combat vehicle, what’s the reason, besides self-deception and speculation of saving soldiers' lives?

                  Of course it should not, but it can if necessary. Not in combined arms of course battle. But in local conflicts completely. At the same time, they will do this with a much lower risk than on the BMP-2.
                  And why can't TBMP stand at the block post?
                  Why do you think the security of the infantry on TBMP is self-deception? At one time we never dreamed of such a technique. Beha was the most protected horse because the BTR-70 in comparison with the cardboard BRM-1K or BMP-2 is generally "paper". From that they preferred to ride on armor. For the defense is still weak. And on the armor at least from mines some kind of protection. And more importantly, they could always dismount instantly, with the whole squad.
                2. 0
                  2 August 2014 03: 18
                  Quote: Per se.
                  You lost the advantages of a floating car, an airmobile, increased weight, reduced maneuverability, range and overall motor life, but the infantry would still dismount for battle, and the heavy infantry fighting vehicle did not become a tank, either in terms of armament or overall armor protection.

                  Well, firstly, I don’t think that TBMP is necessary to transfer everyone without exception. Even in the Union, in the same division, the regiments were on armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles.
                  Is it really necessary to cross the river in isolation from the MBT light car? You even consider TBMP in front of tanks to be disastrous to send. And then "russish paneren" ....
                  Airmobility? And that MBTs are not transported by air?
                  Weight. Did she become heavier than a tank?
                  Maneuverability. Do you really need maneuverability in urban areas, for example? The same BTR-70 (80,90) in the city is generally clumsy in contrast to the tracked vehicles.
                  In any case, maneuverability is not less than that of a tank or BMPT.
                  Quote: Per se.
                  I don’t know who is fingering on the minuses, but I tried to express my vision of the problem and somehow argue. Of course, this is just my opinion, and nothing more.

                  I won’t say it for others. But certainly not me. I can put a minus if a person carries complete nonsense and even behaves defiantly and not correctly. But in no case to anyone who has just a different opinion from mine.
                  1. +1
                    2 August 2014 22: 25
                    Quote: Aristocrat
                    Well, firstly, I don’t think that everyone needs to be transferred to TBMP
                    I will not repeat what has already been said above, I will only emphasize that I did not deny heavy infantry fighting vehicles or armored personnel carriers, all the more, if it is possible to alter them from stocks of old tanks, we are talking about the fact that many perceive this "weight" as the only true standard, with full denying such machines as the BMP-3 or BMD-4M, I do not agree with this, as well as the fact that the direction of the BMPT, namely, as a heavy, but specialized support vehicle, is futile. Much has been said about urban development, street fighting. If you don't be honest, this type of battle is difficult and dangerous for any armored vehicle, including tanks. In addition, there is not only war in the city, there are fields and rivers. In short, the technique is needed differently, and it should correspond to the tasks and the environment in which it is supposed to be used. I hope you will agree with this emphasis on this topic.
                    1. +2
                      3 August 2014 01: 09
                      I deny heavy armored personnel carriers :)
                      A heavy machine armed with a machine gun .... Yes, the Israelis believe that in this way they do not allow the commander of the machine to march into battle with an enemy tank. there is logic in this. When you fight monkeys ...
                      And if you fight not for life but for death as in the 41-45s?

                      To deny the need for light vehicles is just as wrong as the need for heavy ones ... Technique must be different.
                      The best means of destruction of MBT is an ATGM or a tank gun. But does this mean that you need to abandon less effective weapons, such as RPGs? NO!. The enemy will feel comfortable when he has taken cover from a direct shot from MBT or ATGM. The enemy must wait every second from every crack, every window, every pile of broken PG-7 bricks, a line from the DShK to the roof, the throw of the ancient RKG-3 to the stern, a bottle of Molotov Cocktail to the MTO, a bucket of paint to the panorama and triplex !!! ! From all sides, every second, at any time of the day and anywhere! Even in the rear !!!
                      There is experience. Transmitted by the stories of grandfathers, he rooted in the blood of his ancestors that passed it to us as the baton of time. What would no mr.a.s.d not dare to make plans for our children!
          2. +3
            2 August 2014 01: 32
            Regarding the terminator, I believe that the problem with armored vehicles is not the lack of weapons (the tank itself will destroy everyone), but blindness. So what is needed is not a Batmobile (10 machine guns, 5 grenade launchers ...), but a target search and recognition system with the transfer of target designation to other machines.
      2. +1
        1 August 2014 09: 41
        If in support of MBT motorized infantry (sorry motorized riflemen) is equipped with a heavy infantry fighting vehicle, then for what reason do you need BMPT here? Infantry is the best guard for a tank. A tank is the best means of supporting infantry. The infantry on the BMP protected at the level of MBT, armed with an automatic gun + ATGM (s) will fulfill the role of BMPT, but BMPT will never play the role of infantry ...
        I agree 100%, BMP-T is a more versatile tool!
  16. Florist
    +5
    31 July 2014 13: 25
    that’s why they drove me minus ??)) Well, if someone else is armed with a T-34 with bed nets, and can scrape up money for such a T-55? Is he bad for them? Although it is possible that there will be more interesting proposals on the market for the modernization of any tanks such as the M60 or some other, but it is difficult to consider here, not knowing the specific situation with finances and politics in any country, its military doctrine, likely opponents and etc.
  17. Serge56
    +4
    31 July 2014 13: 31
    so much modernization, so many frills ...
    But here in all the pictures on the tank are spare fuel tanks. And if, when the tank passes by, and you from the bushes after him armor-piercing incendiary from a rifle hit him in the tank, what will happen?
    I ask absolutely no joke. It's just that this question has tortured me as an amateur.
    1. +1
      31 July 2014 14: 34
      yes burn nafig and deal with the end Yes
    2. 52
      +5
      31 July 2014 16: 03
      Yes, there will be no nichrome, it will dump and go on, and burning a full tank, especially with diesel fuel, is not easy. And they go into battle without this device, this is only for marches!
    3. 0
      1 August 2014 02: 31
      Quote: Serge56
      And if, when the tank passes by, and you from the bushes after him armor-piercing incendiary from a rifle, you dig into his tank, what will happen

      Tanks are used only on marches, before the battle they are reset, including in an emergency way.
  18. 0
    31 July 2014 14: 18
    The photos are wonderful! Nothing so old ... It looks stylish and can stand up for itself!
    1. +1
      1 August 2014 05: 33
      It looks like a computer model. I do not think these are photos in the article.
  19. +3
    31 July 2014 14: 54
    Quote: Serge56
    so much modernization, so many frills ...
    But here in all the pictures on the tank are spare fuel tanks. And if, when the tank passes by, and you from the bushes after him armor-piercing incendiary from a rifle hit him in the tank, what will happen?
    I ask absolutely no joke. It's just that this question has tortured me as an amateur.

    Tanks with additional fuel tanks are only on the march. When working in the database zone, they are removed.
  20. +1
    31 July 2014 15: 25
    As the experience of the German T-IV shows, the right idea and approach! Even the most modern machines do not have absolute protection. And to rely only on them on the battlefield, here no economy will survive - "melt down and make new ones" ... Although, of course, the validity of the use of such a modernization of the corps will require a serious military-political assessment of the specialists of a particular theater of operations.
    1. slava11
      -3
      31 July 2014 15: 55
      Believe me, here we use these tanks as targets. I saw his side armor after being hit by a crowbar. He didn’t even notice her scrap, I asked for it as a BMP for departure. The tower from the sides is full of holes ONCE. Only in the forehead there are ricochets from afar and tangentially. Cumulative burn through from any angle and angle. How a tank is unrealistically outdated even in the hull We have them very strongly reinforced in armor, engine, transmission, lengthen the body. That's just what a decent tank escort comes out of. But this is a school of battles and designers. And here she is VERY RICH.
      1. +3
        1 August 2014 02: 41
        Quote: slava11
        I saw his side armor after being hit by a crowbar. He didn’t even notice her scrap, I asked for it as a BMP for departure. The tower is laterally full of holes ONCE

        all right - the t55 lacks the so-called multi-layer reservation, but the DZ partially compensates for this drawback, at least it gives a chance to respond to the shot. In any case, this modernization does not position the T55 as equal to the T90, just allows for countries where the main enemy of the RPG7 tank not to spend money on buying new MBTs.
  21. Serge56
    +1
    31 July 2014 15: 56
    I understand that tanks are marching. So on the march, and you have to beat)) Why waste time in the BWA. I remember the first Chechen tank division put on the march.
    So I ask, why go to the tank with heaped up protection, behind the "Molotov cocktail sacks"?
    1. 0
      2 August 2014 15: 55
      Quote: Serge56
      I remember the first Chechen tank division put on the march.

      So what kind of division was put on the march?
  22. 52
    +1
    31 July 2014 16: 14
    In general, UVZ has been sick with modernization projects since the 90s. And nothing new from the article came to light, except for one thing - time passes, the number of T-55 is reduced, but things are still there. And to start moving in this direction is, most likely, pointless. Alas, most likely this is a "bunch" into the cosmic void! sad
    1. 0
      1 August 2014 00: 34
      And nothing new came out of the article
      I do not agree! But what about the graphics? advertising just learned to do!
  23. +1
    31 July 2014 16: 44
    What a "pipe with caps" laughing on the right side of the tower, when viewed from the front? Machine gun as usual could not be made manageable. For machine-gun boxes inside the place it seems there was no ...
  24. +6
    31 July 2014 17: 02
    Quote: Serge56
    I understand that tanks are marching. So on the march, and you have to beat)) Why waste time in the BWA. I remember the first Chechen tank division put on the march.
    So I ask, why go to the tank with heaped up protection, behind the "Molotov cocktail sacks"?

    Well, with the division, you certainly turned down. And about tanks, our tanks, and indeed all BT development from 45 to 90 years, was intended for a classic war, and not for participation in partisans or KTO. A classic war implies that on the march there is a head-on battle, and thus order on the march and combat guard, as well as patrols, will allow you to detect the enemy in advance, and accordingly drop these same tanks (as far as I remember, you can drop them without leaving the tank) . Military doctrine, it is so ... everything is being developed for a specific war, specific tasks and a specific theater.
  25. wanderer_032
    +2
    31 July 2014 17: 27
    Not otherwise compatriots with KBTM and "Omsktransmash" in WOT outplayed.
    There were also attempts to upgrade the T-55 before this, but it seems that even the Papuans do not want it.



    1. wanderer_032
      +3
      31 July 2014 17: 39
      Attempts to make a heavy armored personnel carrier at its base with various weapons were also (BTR-T).


      But it seems these cars are also not in demand.
      Therefore, to parse and deal with the end.
      In the spare parts for some countries of Asia and Africa where there are still 55 weapons in service, much more much more benefit can be brought to the plant and the country.
      1. slava11
        -1
        31 July 2014 18: 15
        It is strange to me for such seditious thought MINUS and you PLUSES. Are anti-Semites really?!?!?!?! belay
        1. wanderer_032
          +5
          31 July 2014 18: 56
          Quote: slava11
          It is strange to me for such seditious thought MINUS and you PLUSES. Are anti-Semites really?!?!?!?!


          It's just that people, without understanding, "chop" off the shoulder.
          Or maybe out of harm, but personally, I did not minus you.
          Quite the contrary.
        2. padonok.71
          +4
          31 July 2014 19: 04
          Be afraid, enemies everywhere, fascists who sleep and see how to offend the good Jewish boy Slavik. And remember about Buchenwald and the Holocaust. So sorry for you.
          1. slava11
            -1
            31 July 2014 19: 50
            The reaction of anti-Semite, I saw a white and blue flag - the enemy, atu him. It doesn’t even matter what he told the truth, he even advised good. And the people did not understand? But these are not people. The people are people, and the one who hates another people only because it is a different people - and ki are not worthy to be called People, People.
            It’s just here on the site that some everywhere see enemies, all who are not with them against them. They cannot distinguish black from white - they are divided only according to nationality. But we don’t need to feel sorry for us, at least in our sandbox we’ll kill anyone.
            1. padonok.71
              -1
              31 July 2014 21: 19
              And there is nothing to feel sorry for you for. And that's exactly what's in the sandbox. Who are you driving the database against. Against the "Arabs"? Well, these are still those warriors. And with full carte blanche choto, you don't really succeed there. "Snatcher" crumpled, did he even hold a machine gun in his hands?
              1. slava11
                +1
                1 August 2014 11: 04
                The war against terrorists hiding behind children, women, and hospitals imposes many restrictions on the Israeli army. Artillery mainly works on empty areas, aviation almost every second sortie ends with the cancellation of the attack, since pilots report a crowd of people near the target, even tanks mostly fire from machine guns. It's hard to fight with your hands tied. As for carte blanche, read not only pro-Russian news but also European news for a change. They read us kicking even before the outbreak of hostilities, while they rush to us from all over the world with threats, and after that, an international tribunal is always waiting for us. Incidentally, Russia is in the forefront of condemning us for using force against "peaceful" terrorists. I was holding the machine gun, I'm not as cool as you, I graduated from a construction school, served in a construction battalion, and built a country. And your personal coolness is worth nothing here. In the Israeli army, first of all, they teach that the word "command" does not contain the letter "I" and if you do not understand this then you will not be an officer.
                1. padonok.71
                  0
                  1 August 2014 14: 21
                  Quote: slava11
                  The war against terrorists that hide behind children, women, and hospitals imposes a lot of restrictions on the Israeli army. Artillery mainly works on empty areas, aviation almost every second flight ends with the cancellation of the attack, as pilots report crowding near the target, even tanks mostly fire from machine guns.

                  You tell these tales to yahve, I don’t need to.
                  Quote: slava11
                  As for carte blanche, you read not only pro-Russian news but also European ones for a change. They read us to kick even before the start of hostilities, during which we are rushed from all over the world with threats, and after that an international tribunal always awaits us.

                  At the expense of the "peaceful" Chechens, too, read it, somehow. As the owners of your Americans, they poured mud on us. And something about the trials of your "Budanovs" (forgive me, friend, you are a good soldier), I have not heard, but they are, they cannot but be in this kind of conflict.
                  Quote: slava11
                  In the Israeli army, first of all, they teach that the word "command" does not contain the letter "I" and if you do not understand this then you will not be an officer.

                  Who finished the RVDKU, he is already an officer. I’m a pensioner already, I’m walking with a wand.
                2. +1
                  2 August 2014 15: 58
                  Quote: slava11
                  The war against terrorists that hide behind children, women, and hospitals imposes a lot of restrictions on the Israeli army. Artillery mainly works on empty areas, aviation almost every second flight ends with the cancellation of the attack as pilots report crowding near the target, even tanks mostly fire from machine guns. It’s hard to fight with tied hands.

                  Then you’ve laid down 1500 Palestinians in a week, you would have killed everyone if it hadn’t been for restrictions.
          2. slava11
            -3
            31 July 2014 19: 51
            Can I find out at which school you were taught?
            1. padonok.71
              +3
              31 July 2014 21: 13
              And they taught me, my dear crying friend at the Ryazan Higher Airborne Command School named after Army General V.F. Margelov.
          3. slava11
            0
            31 July 2014 19: 56
            And one more thing - leave those who died in that war alone. One of my grandfathers fought the whole war on the western front, and the second after the war fought with the Japanese, including that you would live. And do not stink on those who then lived, fought and died. Only geeks behave this way.
            1. padonok.71
              +2
              31 July 2014 20: 56
              What hurt the living? .........................deleted apollo Did I write somewhere that I hate Jews? On the contrary, I treat them absolutely normal. In the unit where I serve, there are a couple of C's. And there are no whiners among them. And they do not "cut dividends" from their tortured ancestors. After all, the ancestors were tortured and not them. And by the way, the Russian people perished in that war more than anyone else. Including for the sake of those "offended" by the fascists who have never even seen a fascist.
              But, a little minus, it starts - they will ignore me for being a Jew. You are minded for being a snotty kid. Did he see any advice? Here people are smarter.
              Go on crying to the whole world, how offended you are and "quietly" kill Arab children. Because against a man, people like you, och..o shakes.
              PS: this does not apply to normal Jews.
              1. slava11
                -2
                1 August 2014 11: 19
                Yes, from the brains remained only his back. You don’t even respect your story. But heroes need Arabs to come. By the way, there were a lot of advisers from the USSR at the time, Arabs studied at the academy, but it was no use. Even with officers like you, Jews still defeated everyone, so now only the terrorists remain.
                1. padonok.71
                  +1
                  1 August 2014 14: 41
                  Quote: slava11
                  Yes, from the brains remained only his back.

                  Yes, they worked at one time "for wear and tear", they did not chase the shekels on construction sites.
                  Quote: slava11
                  You don’t even respect your story.

                  Well, not an example to you, already from the graves of his ancestors he escaped to the promised.
                  Quote: slava11
                  Even with officers like you, Jews still defeated everyone, so now only the terrorists remain.

                  Not when he did not serve in the tzahal, not an ordinary, not an officer, not a general.
                  And there is no glory in the victory over the Arabs, nor what. Here it’s not a big deal to break the ridge, to conquer the Caucasus, to become the largest country in the world - this is where GLORY!
                  And these poor Muslims drive half a century .....
              2. slava11
                +1
                1 August 2014 11: 22
                I forgot to ask, what does your hatred for Jews and T55 tanks have, because the Jews burned them?
                1. padonok.71
                  +1
                  1 August 2014 14: 50
                  I repeat once again, I am towards them (but you, not one of these, are newcomers), I am normal. Not to say that I love straight to the point of fooling, but to hate me is not counted.
                  I don’t want to talk to you anymore, you are two-faced and corrupt.
                  1. The comment was deleted.
              3. slava11
                0
                1 August 2014 11: 49
                Anti-Semitism, as always, is worth the price.
                1. padonok.71
                  0
                  1 August 2014 14: 07
                  Especially among the Jews themselves. The rest is for hell, you are a Jew or an Arab.
            2. 0
              1 August 2014 08: 26
              How would the grandfathers who fought for their homeland accept the fact that their granddaughters sold this homeland for a handful of shekels?
              1. slava11
                -1
                1 August 2014 11: 41
                And you don’t teach me. I built military units and towns in the Far East. I'm not ashamed of anything. And what have you done for your homeland except to get the keyboard dirty.
                1. +2
                  1 August 2014 16: 12
                  Tell me who is anti-simit, can I do it ???
                2. +1
                  1 August 2014 19: 04
                  To teach you what to treat the dead. At least I did not sell it.
        3. +2
          1 August 2014 16: 09
          What kind of beast is anti-Semite?
    2. +1
      1 August 2014 00: 37
      even the Papuans do not want to.
      the Papuans get along very well with AKM and "jeep" with DShK ... they are only free of this
  26. Owl
    +4
    31 July 2014 17: 53
    This was relevant (increasing mobility, security, reliability and ease of use) for the Russian Interior Ministry units 20 years ago. In the Caucasus, beyond the trellis screens mounted on some part of the tanks, nothing was done.
  27. Berezin alex
    +1
    31 July 2014 19: 49
    It would be better to upgrade the existing T-72 to a level close to the T-90A. If the upgrade will cost half the cost of the new T-90A, then this is a great success. In Russia, the T-72 is still in good condition. It would be better to write off junk like T-55, T-62 and T-64, and modernized the T-80U.
  28. Tyumen
    +1
    31 July 2014 21: 17
    Just think how much material and better mental resources we spend on exterminating our own kind. We also argue who does this better ...
  29. padonok.71
    0
    31 July 2014 21: 26
    The ancient Greek philosopher-hater Plato believed that "war is the natural state of peoples."
    And he must have been right.
    1. -2
      1 August 2014 08: 30
      I do not think that this saying of his testifies to his "misanthropy". Rather, it is a statement of fact and a renunciation of idealism, according to which man is a friend to man. We were taught that way. This is how I was brought up. But alas, my worldview is not shared with me by a lot of people. That (more precisely) those peoples "who shot at our fathers and are making plans for our children ..."
      1. 0
        3 August 2014 01: 17
        Oops! Nazhi Middle Eastern "friends" together began to minus me.
        Those who do not like Jews are anti-Semites.
        And those who hate Russians, who? )
        Ahhhh remembered! Russophobes are insignificant! :)
        I certainly feel sorry for them. It is a pity that they feel their inferiority. But alas, I'm not a psychiatrist. I can only treat with a stool :)
  30. +1
    31 July 2014 21: 44
    Better to just repair, but sell the T-55 as it is. Even the modernized one will not trample against the "Abrams", but against the Papuans, and without modernization, that's it.
    Although, Chinese counterparts are full.
    1. 0
      1 August 2014 09: 16
      And if the Papuans from a neighboring country have the same T-55?)))
      T-55 + taxis just opposite "T-55")))
      1. padonok.71
        0
        1 August 2014 13: 59
        No, Plato was still a hanurik. There, if you read - who is the fascist. But only not by peoples, but by social status. You and your nickname would be there "in grief" Yes
        And here I am ...
      2. 0
        1 August 2014 15: 06
        In such a situation, the one who is more professional wins, i.e. as an additional proposal, offer both training and the ammunition mentioned.
  31. aba
    +2
    1 August 2014 00: 23
    Another thing bothers me, if the tank weighs 36 tons, then modernization increases its weight by almost 10% - 800 + 920 + 2 * 480. That is 2 680 kg. Okay, they’re putting a new power plant, that is, the power-to-weight ratio does not suffer. And how will the chassis carry the extra load?
    And lastly, how much does this holiday of life cost ?!
    And according to this, that with orders is not a lot, or rather zero, then apparently financial gain is somehow not implied. If the price were fine, then buyers would certainly be found.
  32. +1
    1 August 2014 05: 26
    And who knows how to shoot a missile from a rifled barrel?
    Something I have not heard about this to be honest ... request
  33. 0
    1 August 2014 07: 33
    Quote: avdkrd
    I’m afraid that, at the request of the customer, it is possible to put a remote machine-gun mount and even change the gun to 125 mm or 120 mm. The issue price is all. And for a third-world theater, it’s quite a car.
    PS I read somewhere that the Mujahideen in Afghanistan have great respect for the surviving 55 tons because of 100 rifled guns. All the same, the smoothbore does not allow shooting at such distances (10km), plus high accuracy, and in mountain conditions, both are in demand.


    It is highly doubtful that the breech and the 55-120mm gun guidance mechanisms will fit into the middle T-125 turret. + styling alteration and at least a third reduced ammunition ...

    At 10 km it is not possible to shoot accurately because the scope is not pulled out for a given distance. Why did you decide that a feathered projectile with greater flatness (due to a higher initial speed) is less accurate?
    1. 0
      1 August 2014 11: 18
      By the way, the T-62 on the basis of the t-55 was born just like that. For the sake of 115mm guns increased the tower. To install it, we expanded and lengthened the machine body and changed the location of the rollers. So generally I am silent about 120-125mm ... Whoever saw the T-55 knows how compact it is. There is not a single extra centimeter there ...
  34. +2
    1 August 2014 08: 22
    Quote: slava11
    The people are people, and the one who hates another people only because it is a different people - and ki are not worthy to be called People, People.


    Oops! It is not by any chance that you are talking about the people for whom all the other peoples are "Goi" ("non-people")?
    You are our bilingual.
    1. slava11
      -2
      1 August 2014 12: 35
      I said? No. It turns out you!
      1. +3
        1 August 2014 19: 28
        I haven’t taken to brooding with you, so keep your emotions to yourself and yourself within the bounds of decency. "You" is still valuable.
  35. +1
    1 August 2014 10: 32
    http://topwar.ru/uploads/images/2014/965/eooo643.jpg
  36. 0
    1 August 2014 10: 33
    http://topwar.ru/uploads/images/2014/211/ezmv226.jpg
  37. 0
    1 August 2014 10: 46
    http://topwar.ru/1623-tank-t-55agm-ukraina.html
  38. 0
    1 August 2014 14: 40
    Quote: 52gim
    But in general, the Professor is right, the t-44-54-55-62 family has lived its life, it's time to rest. The century of these wonderful machines in the past, it is easier and more efficient to upgrade the "seventy-second", and the effect will be, and the number considerable. Yes, and these vehicles (t-44 .... 62) were removed from service in most countries. If you follow the path of insanity (expensive and useless modernization), then the T-334-85 is an even more interesting "subject".

    You are wrong, for local wars do not need T-72, T-80 and T-90. Enough T-62M, T-55AM. In terms of suitability for such conflicts, they are better and cheaper. And I didn’t say that. Our generals conducted research on what was better for the 2nd Chechen company and Afghanistan. It turned out the T-62M. And not at all the T-72B, and even more so, the T-80U.
    1. +2
      1 August 2014 16: 24
      Quote: goose
      You are wrong, for local wars do not need T-72, T-80 and T-90. Enough T-62M, T-55AM. In terms of suitability for such conflicts, they are better and cheaper. And I didn’t say that. Our generals conducted research on what was best for 2nd Chechen company and Afghanistan. It turned out the T-62M. And not at all the T-72B, and even more so, the T-80U.

      1. For Chechnya, it turned out to be better because of its simplicity, reliability and less crew fatigue in long operations. All this is relevant for an army with a poorly organized rear organization and training of both exploiters and maintenance personnel. Having the above indicated in sufficient quantity and quality, 1 place would take T-80u. By virtue of a more advanced SLA.
      2. There was not so much T-72 on the subject of Afghanistan, and the T-62 still weighs less in the mountains. Again, problems with supply and repair in difficult terrain.

      As a nikruti, the question is not in tanks for war, but in operation. For local wars, special units with high-tech equipment are needed to minimize losses.

      But for the global war T-72, T-62 and T-55 is what the doctor ordered.
      1. 0
        1 August 2014 19: 36
        But for the global war T-72, T-62 and T-55 is what the doctor ordered.


        Exactly. That is why these machines are not designed to be "woodwaffen" but to be easy to use, manufacture and operate. Following the example of the T-34. By analogy with the Kalashnikov assault rifle. That even in the conditions of a protracted large-scale war, new tanks left the assembly line one by one.
        History has proved the correctness of the concept. Fascist Germany did not have time to reproduce expensive high-tech weapons, while thousands of them in the Urals produced not qualified personnel but women and children.
        I agree that you need the best for local conflicts. And the simple cheap for global wars.
  39. +1
    1 August 2014 18: 08
    Dear, at least take a look at the Wiki section "modern operators" T-55 and you will be amused for all these disputes. Offered a commercial tank modernization for those countries that cannot buy new tanks.
    For example, in Iran there are under 500 such cars. More than 200 in Vietnam, the DPRK has almost a thousand. And on the list in fifty countries. Is this market not worthy of attention? Yes, the car will probably not be the most perfect, but quite modern and as an inexpensive way to upgrade the tank fleet is quite suitable.
    And if the market turns out to be supportive of the idea of ​​a "budget tank", then you can attach your own T-55s for the occasion.
  40. 0
    1 August 2014 22: 11
    the right decision. It’s much better to upgrade than just cutting to metal. Let it be not the main tank, but the support tank. Now there is only more troops left. Similar programs need to be applied to other obsolete tanks.
    1. 0
      2 August 2014 04: 14
      Not true. Vryatli costs for the modernization of such obsolete equipment are relevant for Russia. The same funds can be invested in the modernization of early modifications of the T-72. And with the best efficiency.
      1. 0
        2 August 2014 12: 05
        Well, do not throw them in the trash. And especially since war is on the nose. Everything will come in handy.
        1. 0
          3 August 2014 01: 19
          In Russia, the T-55 can only be found on a pedestal or at a shooting range as a target :)
  41. padonok.71
    +1
    2 August 2014 00: 28
    Where did Slavik go? I must have prescribed a black mark for me. It is a pity, the "interlocutor" was cool.
    1. 0
      2 August 2014 04: 08
      Vryatli is banned by the administration. To some extent, the administration of trolls is beneficial. Live trolling increases site traffic and forum activity, and hence advertising revenue.
      Most likely tamed by his own masters. An agent of influence must conduct politics subtly. Dumb as a cork agent in vain receives shekels from Mossad. They probably didn’t fire him. But they can send them for re-education. Maybe they will put a little knowledge on weapons :)
      The purpose of the activity: to popularize the strength of German ... in the sense of Israeli weapons and the invincibility of the Aryans ... in the sense of the Jews :) As well as the decomposition of the most patriotic citizens of Russia. This is a delicate matter. People could not cope. Instead of the above, its Salabon behavior provokes a storm of anti-Semitic sentiment, which naturally dislikes the leadership.
      1. +1
        3 August 2014 00: 50
        And the smoking room is alive! Yes, even the kibbutz pinned his minuses to stick! :)))))
        1. padonok.71
          0
          3 August 2014 20: 27
          Vindictive! Laughter - and only.
  42. Mishanya 84
    +2
    2 August 2014 12: 39
    An interesting commercial offer. And will the demand show time.
  43. rumata63
    0
    2 August 2014 17: 35
    there’s just no this 51, Omsk plant only territory and workshops.
  44. bubble82009
    +2
    2 August 2014 23: 10
    T-55 tank is not a bad tank. when NATO in Libya shot all T-72 Gaddafi, his troops fought on these tanks. why does everyone compare him to Abrams or Merkava? T-55 tanks will fight against similar or outdated European models. the tank will carry out its direct tasks to break through the defenses, fight with firing points and, at the very least, with tanks.
    1. slava11
      0
      3 August 2014 09: 49
      So you need to compare with the tanks of a potential enemy. And what's the point of building tanks on their own terms of the game? The enemy creates his technique and you are forced to either catch up or get ahead. Lash in the rearguard - lose in advance.
  45. Wing
    0
    3 August 2014 14: 47
    Quote: 52gim
    But in general, the Professor is right, the t-44-54-55-62 family has lived its life, it's time to rest. The century of these wonderful machines in the past, it is easier and more efficient to upgrade the "seventy-second", and the effect will be, and the number considerable. Yes, and these vehicles (t-44 .... 62) were removed from service in most countries. If you follow the path of insanity (expensive and useless modernization), then the T-334-85 is an even more interesting "subject". laughing

    At the Battle of Kuska, half of the tanks were light T-70s, etc., in the event of hostilities, everything will go into action.
    1. slava11
      -1
      3 August 2014 16: 49
      Is it kind of good or bad?
  46. 0
    5 August 2014 14: 45
    Can I put a module from the terminator? It would probably be nice
  47. +1
    5 August 2014 15: 35
    With completely incomprehensible to me stubbornness they put a machine gun on the right (in the text of the article - "on the left") hatch, without providing any protection for the shooter. Apparently, the loader is cheaper than a cylinder or armor box half a meter high around the hatch.

    And it is unfortunate that the installation of a parking diesel generator is not provided.

    Well, the rear of the tower is bare - at least to hang with chains, to cover up an obviously vulnerable spot, as on the "Merkava".
  48. 9781
    +1
    6 August 2014 17: 01
    Uralvagonzavod decided to repeat the Omsk modernization options? There was also an option with a 125-mm cannon, running dummies were running in the late 90s. Apparently, after the "merger" into the holding, they dug into the archives of Transmash ..)
  49. bevatec
    +2
    7 August 2014 15: 06
    Is the author somehow far from the tank theme, or stupidly rewrote an article from an ancient magazine? The heat-shielding cover of the gun, the achievement of the 60s, is made of thin aluminum sheets and it’s ridiculous to discuss this topic with clarification about the counterweights on the breech. hp is a 690-engine without a supercharger (72ls supercharging) for a weaker transmission of 780-55-ек, in the engine-transmission compartment of which with this engine a water purifier, called the author by some block of cyclones and td-did not fit and put it on the fenders in armored om the box. Caterpillars with a rubber-metal hinge (RMSh) do not affect the pressure on the ground, but simply increase the resource of the caterpillar itself (used in peacetime, because in a combat situation it is very difficult to operate if it is necessary to replace damaged tracks). R-62-hundred radio stations years at lunchtime and even Papuans will not be obsessed with it. The collimator scope is even older. Is there some strange modernization with junk left in warehouses?
  50. +1
    8 August 2014 12: 55
    Quote: dzvero
    also, is it obligatory to upgrade at the factory or will the factory supply "repair kits" for self-installation?


    Obviously, you can’t put a new engine and transmission without a factory. And the sighting equipment is not clear. Are sights and surveillance devices installed in regular seats or a tower to be cut?

    The most important thing in this modernization is the price of the issue. If tanks need to be driven to the factory, then the price will not be very low.
  51. 9CAM
    0
    25 August 2014 07: 59
    This modernization project is reminiscent of restoring a muscle car. But let’s not forget that you can fit a good engine, transmission, suspension into an old Volga and it can compete with many foreign cars. This project is aimed mainly at advertising “look guys, we can do it.” Reminds me of a "pimp car". laughing
  52. 0
    14 October 2017 21: 49
    I don’t understand, our engineers have an aversion to automatic transmissions? Is it difficult to make an automatic machine?
  53. 0
    22 November 2017 18: 44
    "When detonated, the shell body breaks into 3393 fragments"
    Nonsense!
    There are 3395 fragments (personally counted)!
  54. 0
    April 27 2020 08: 47
    If this modernization is relatively inexpensive, then it can and should be done. The only thing I would add would be to swap the positions of the T 55 and T 64....turrets. Let me explain. The T 55 has structurally similar chassis and interior parts to the T 72. This way, the maintenance and operation of such a tank will be simplified. Plus, the 125mm caliber will allow the use of modern rounds. As a reserve tank, for internal troops, for some remote military bases, the modernized T 55 with a turret from the T 64 will not be bad. For example, in Abkhazia there is probably no point in equipping a military base with Almaty units. But the T55 will be enough. T 64 with a turret from T 55 can be transferred to all sorts of Papuans as land rent for a military base or something else.